InTouch: UNC Employee Forum News
Volume 8, Number 2 February 2007
Address to Board of Trustees, January 24, 2007
Are You EPA or SPA---And Why Should You Care?
Career Banding Update
Time and Attendance Method for SPA Non-Exempt Employees Announced
Sight Unseen: New PPO Plan Sign-up a Shot in the Dark for Employees
Rumor Has It: Yearly Benefits Statements
Legislative Action: Where Do We Begin?
Forum Planning New Website for Staff Employees
New Hoops to Jump Through: Basic Employment Eligibility
Opinion: Thoughts on the Tuition Increase for Students
From the Chair, Ernie Patterson ...
Address to Board of Trustees, January 24, 2007
Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about issues and concerns that
are currently before the Employee Forum. As we look ahead into the new year,
we see three major issues that need to be addressed.
The first concerns our physical facilities. Recently, with your support, Bruce
Runberg has started meeting with staff who want to help find ways to improve
both the construction and the renovation of our facilities. At our first meeting we
shared a number of ideas and discussed how to catch problems early in the
planning and design phases of construction so that the University will not have to
pay to fix them later after construction is complete. It is my hope that this meeting
will evolve into a standing group that works to support the participation of
everyone at UNC, especially with the challenges that constructing Carolina North
will create.
The second issue that has engaged the Forum’s attention in recent weeks is the
selection of a University-wide standard for work time and attendance reporting
that will be instituted using the new Kronos timekeeping system. Representatives
of the Forum participated in the Kronos Time and Attendance Steering
Committee for Phase II and, as a result of what they learned there, have
expressed their support for the implementation of this more modern payroll and
benefits tracking system. Delegates were especially pleased that the
Administration chose to maintain its historic trust-based relationship with
employees in the selection of the timekeeping method that will become the
campus norm. We ask that, as the new system is implemented around campus,
department chairs and division heads be encouraged to continue to seek and
carefully consider staff input before choosing to change the University Standards.
We also ask that the Administration consider implementing a similar time tracking
method for student workers that respects their integrity as professionals-in-training.
The third issue we are working on is to make a contribution to President Erskine
Bowles’ PACE (President’s Advisory Committee on Efficiency and Effectiveness)
initiative. To accomplish this, the Forum has created an easy, web-based method
for UNC employees to provide input about ways they think the University could
use our existing resources as effectively as possible. As the front-line, ground-level
people who take care of the daily details that keep this great institution
running, staff employees may have important insights into measures that will
improve our efficiency and cost effectiveness.
Last week we sent an email to all staff and encouraged them to submit their
ideas to the Forum. Delegates will organize and summarize these ideas and
pass them along to Mr. David Perry for incorporation into our campus’ final
efficiency recommendations to General Administration. We ask both the Board of
Trustees and the Administration to get behind a campus-wide effort to encourage
and support staff participation not just in the gathering of ideas, but in their
implementation in the months to come.
One issue in President Bowles’ PACE report that is of very great concern to the
members of the Forum is the recommendation that staff employees be removed
from the state personnel system—a recommendation known as “personnel
flexibility.” All the staff have heard what happened at UNC Hospitals after the
Legislature removed those employees from under the NC State Personnel Act.
The reports we have heard are not encouraging, and many staff employees are
very hesitant to see the same thing happen to them and their co-workers.
Rather than rejecting the State Personnel Act, the Forum would encourage UNC
to propose changes to the State Personnel Act that would address the personnel
system needs that have been identified by several studies in the last few years.
Although these studies have advocated withdrawal from the system, they also
admit that many of the needs they identify could be met by adjusting the current
system. The Forum is ready to work with the Administration to effect these kinds
of changes.
However, if “personnel flexibility” similar to that at UNC Hospitals is to be
proposed for all staff University employees, the Forum asks that you draw a
boundary around the employment protections employees currently have under
the State Personnel Act and refuse to allow those to be dismantled. Given the
inherent power inequalities in the employer-employee relationship, these
protections are vital to the morale and productivity of staff employees.
Dismantling these protections would cripple not only employee relations but also,
in the long run, the very operations of this University and would introduce a whole
new set of problems.
All of the points that I have raised this afternoon are based on the fact that UNC
staff brings many skills to their work that go above and beyond the strict
requirements of their jobs. Too often, these skills are not recognized, and staff
are instructed to work only on their “official” jobs and discouraged from using
innovative and creative thinking outside that setting. Yet UNC staff are highly
educated, highly motivated and truly committed to the welfare of this University.
Paying attention to their ideas will make a difference in the success of our
University. Supporting ways to insure that employees are able to be involved—
and are encouraged to do so—should be included as our fourth core function.
Our University did not become great by suppressing ideas and innovative
thinking. We became great by encouraging and embracing open and honest
dialog.
Are You EPA or SPA---and Why Should You Care?
For several years there has been talk about taking UNC system staff employees out from under the Legislature and the Office of State Personnel. That talk is getting louder. What will happen to your job if this occurs? It depends on how your job is classified.
Those staff who are subject to the State Personnel Act—SPA employees—will be removed from the legal restrictions and the protections that the Act gives them. These are set by the Legislature, and their enforcement is managed by the Office of State Personnel.
Staff employees who are EPA Non-faculty are Exempt from the Personnel Act, which means that they do not work under the same restrictions or have the same employment protections as SPA employees. Instead, their employment is by contract, the terms of which are largely set by the Administration, who then also manages the positions. Although basic data on EPA-NF employees is supposed to be shared with the OSP, recent inquiries have revealed that in actual fact almost no information is shared at the state level about EPA-NF staff at UNC-Chapel Hill.
Of the roughly 41,000 employees in the 16-campus University system, about half are SPA employees. The other half are EPA (faculty) and EPA Non-faculty (professional and other staff) employees. Withdrawal from the state system would thus impact approximately 20,000 SPA employees statewide.
SPA employees are subject to the restrictions and the protections of the State Personnel Act. If you turn in an Employee Time Record every two weeks, you are an SPA employee. (A very few SPA employees—a special class of “exempt” employees—do not fill out this form. Instead, they report their work time like EPA Non-faculty employees.) EPA Non-faculty employees are not subject to the same job restrictions or job protections as SPA employees. They are presumed to work at least 40 hours per week and are required only to report their used leave time once a month.
Supporters of the withdrawal idea, which is called “personnel flexibility,” say that it will give the Administration greater control over the 70% of its annual budget that is tied up in human resources.
Administration would have greater control over hiring policies and managing positions. It would have the flexibility to try to attract and keep the best workers by pitching salary offers according to local market standards rather than according to the outdated salary grade system of the SPA. And it would make the University more cost-efficient by tying pay increases for existing staff to job performance rather than to factors like longevity or legislative mandate.
These changes and others, they say, would help to reduce turnover, which costs the University system about $2,000 per position. At this rate, turnover in SPA positions alone at the Chapel Hill campus in 2005 cost nearly $2 million, according to turnover figures provided by the OSP.
Opponents of the personnel flexibility plan point out that in the absence of funding, promises of larger salaries may be true for new hires but do not mean very much for current employees. And what could be lost in terms of employee rights, benefits and protections, they say, may outweigh the financial carrot that is being dangled before raise-starved employees.
One of the most important losses would be the job security protections given by the State Personnel Act. Under SPA rules, employees are considered to have a “property interest” in their jobs—meaning an expectation of an indefinite continuation of employment. For an SPA employee to be terminated, the employer must show “just cause.” If an employee feels he or she has been terminated unjustly, they have the right to grieve the decision.
However, if personnel flexibility were enacted, this property interest could be wiped out, and staff employees could have their employment interests protected only by contract, just like EPA-NF employees. This means that they would be employed “at will” and could be terminated without cause at any time. The grievance procedures for EPA-NF employees, particularly regarding termination, are not as robust as those for SPA employees.
The legal adoption of personnel flexibility for all employees would formalize a staffing strategy that has already been under way at UNC-Chapel Hill for a decade.
Since 1995, almost all of the growth in staff positions on the campus has been in EPA-NF jobs that are “at will.” In 1995, staff employees at UNC-Chapel Hill numbered 6,546, with 89% of them being SPA employees. By 2005, staff employees numbered 7,828, with only 80% of them being SPA employees.
Put another way, between 1995 and 2005, the number of SPA employees increased by 8%, while the number of EPA-NF employees increased by 113%. The clear preference of the University is to have individual, contract-based, “at will” control over all employment.
One way to evaluate how successful contract-based, “at will” positions are at increasing job satisfaction and thus managing the cost of staffing would be to compare key measures such as hire-on salary rates, average raise rates, and turnover figures (voluntary and involuntary) for SPA and EPA-NF staff jobs. However, as noted above, data for EPA-NF staff have not been provided to the OSP by the Administration at UNC-CH, so comparisons that could shed light on the future for SPA employees if they are cut lose from the state system are difficult to make.
There are other important differences between SPA and EPA-NF, as well. To learn more about these differences and get some idea of how your employment conditions could change if SPA employees are brought out from under the state system, refer to the handy table at http://provost.uncg.edu/documents/personnel/EPA-SPA_comparisonchart.doc.
Career banding—the process of converting some of the state’s old job titles to more modern ones and updating their pay structures to more closely reflect market rates—will be done for one more group of UNC employees by the time this newsletter is published.
About 1,000 employees in research and social/clinical research jobs (plus 400 other unfilled positions) will have been banded by January 22nd, joining employees in Public Safety and IT, whose jobs were banded in 2004.
No further banding efforts are anticipated at this time. The NC Legislature suspended banding indefinitely in 2006 and set a deadline of February 1st for the completion of whatever conversions were already in progress.
The inability to properly classify and compensate positions was cited by UNC President Erskine Bowles’ PACE study as one of the most frustrating things that our Human Resources department must face.
Career banding was initiated by the Office of State Personnel as a step toward addressing that frustration—although, as public safety and IT employees know, without the funds to bring employee pay closer to market rates, the process is not really very meaningful.
Employees wanting to know more about career banding can go to the following OSP website: http://www.osp.state.nc.us/CareerBanding/cbemps_amy/cbemps.htm. Or, you may call the Office of State Personnel at (919) 807-4800.
Time and Attendance Recording Method for SPA Non-Exempt Employees Announced
It’s official: The standard work time recording method for SPA employees at UNC under the new electronic Kronos time and attendance tracking system will be the time entry method. This method essentially replicates electronically the paper-based timesheet method currently used by this group.
In a memo dated January 10, 2007, Dennis Press, University Controller, announced to deans, directors and department chairs that standard methods of time collection for three classes of University employees had been decided.
All permanent EPA and SPA-Exempt employees will use a “leave notification” method that replicates their current time tracking practices. They will record only their monthly leave information into the Kronos system.
Regular SPA employees will use a “manual time entry” method that allows them to enter their daily work start and stop times into an on-line timecard. They will have the ability to edit their timecards as necessary within any given pay period.
Temporary and student employees will use an “automated time capture” method that will require them to have access to one of several different time punching devices.
Most campus units that do not want to use these standard processes can apply to use one of the others as an alternative. Press’ memo encouraged directors to form focus groups of front-line managers within their departments in order to discuss options and costs and to provide feedback about implementation.
Two campus units have already been approved to use an alternative method—the automated time capture method—for their SPA employees. Administrators in Facilities Services and Energy Services made their time tracking preferences known before the Kronos system was purchased, and their requests were approved.
The cost of about 60 time stamp devices for these two campus units was included in the original funding request for the project. The devices have been purchased, and plans are under way for their installation in the near future.
Sight Unseen: New PPO Plan Sign-up a Shot in the Dark for Employees
The open enrollment period for choosing your health care options for next year is scheduled for March 1-31. During open enrollment, most employees have their one opportunity for the year to choose which of the state-sponsored health plans they want to sign up for and whether they want to pay for spouse or dependent coverage.
The trouble with this year's enrollment is that employees will not have any firm information about plan costs and benefits when they sign up.
In order to accommodate a July 1st benefit start date, enrollment must occur before the NC Legislature will have looked at the costs of the plans and decided how they should be managed next year.
Instead of actual premium cost and plan coverage information, employees will be given figures that were accurate for the past year and will be advised that there may be adjustments pending decisions by the Legislature.
At the Employee Forum Annual Retreat on January 16th, NC Representative Verla Insko and NC Senator Ellie Kinnaird, who were guest speakers, were asked about this situation. They expressed surprise that employees are being asked to take such a shot in the dark and promised to look into it.
If you have questions, you can direct them to the State Employee Health Insurance Plan office at (919) 881-2300.
Rumor Has It: YEARLY BENEFITS STATEMENTS
If you've heard the rumor that this year staff employees will not be getting an envelope with a summary statement of their benefits inside, the rumor is true. Kind of.
In keeping with the University's increasing move toward electronic rather than paper systems, the paper statements will not be generated for most employees this year. Instead, an electronic information system known as Benefits Web will soon be on line.
Using this system, employees will be able to access information about their benefits on demand, at any time, rather than just once a year.
Although Benefits Web has not gone live yet, it is expected to be up and running within the next few months. After it is functional, paper benefits statements will be able to be generated for employees upon request. Just call the Benefits Office at HR at 962-3071.
Legislative Action: Where Do We Begin?
Mike Hawkins
Forum Delegate Div 9; Chair, Legislative Action Committee
919-818-7241 links-golfer@hotmail.com or msh-uncforum-la@unc.edu
UNC staff have the right as citizens of this state to express their points of view to their elected officials. How do they do that? Who do they communicate with?
Below are some places to go to find out. I hope you will bookmark these sites and use them for your own research regarding matters in state government that affect you in your work at UNC.
The first site is a list of the counties where UNC-Chapel Hill employees live; it was created by the Forum’s Legislative Action Committee last year.
The next two sites are the SEANC (State Employees Association of North Carolina) home page and legislative affairs page. SEANC is a professional organization of state employees from all over North Carolina one of whose missions is to represent the points of view of state employees. You will find many items of interest there.
Finally there are several NC government sites that provide information on the NC Legislature and many other state agencies.
If you are interested in the legislative process and want to help make a difference in what happens to you and your co-workers this year, you can join the Employee Forum Legislative Action Committee. Write or call me.
For the last 16 years Laurie Charest has probably had more of an impact on the daily work life of employees at UNC-Chapel Hill than any other single administrator. As Associate Vice Chancellor of HR, she has ensured that the University and its employees complied with state and national employment laws, responded to the changing priorities and demands of several different administrations, and helped to represent staff employee concerns to chancellors, system presidents, a variety of state offices in Raleigh, and our elected officials.
At the end of January, Charest will retire. As the University begins the search for her successor, the Forum asked her to reflect upon the history of Human Resources at UNC and where we go from here.
What was Human Resources like when you came to UNC?
In 1990, there was NO human resources office. There was a Staff Personnel Office and a Faculty Benefits Office, but they represented very basic functions and gave little or no support to employee growth and development, work-life functions, employee recognition, etc. Personnel policies existed...but they weren't available for employees to read. And everything was processed manually—there was not a single computer in the department!
Do you remember the first time you closed the door to your office at the end of the day and thought, "Wow! We've really accomplished something, here!"
The best feelings are always associated with resolving problems. The successes are usually on an individual level—and it's a great feeling to resolve an issue that is important to an individual.
What are some of the best things that have happened in HR during the last 19 years? What have been some of the "aha!" moments?
One of the most satisfying things has been seeing the growth of our employee training and development programs and the beginning of work-life support programs such as the child care center, Carolina Kids Camp, and the child care subsidy program.
What has been your biggest regret or disappointment?
Despite much information about and attention to the serious deficiencies in our benefits programs, we have not been able to make significant improvements.
The Employee Forum came into existence in 1995 as a group to help represent employee interests and concerns to the Administration. What kind of relationship did the early Forum have to HR?
Chancellor Hardin asked HR to assist in the development of a staff advisory group. After conducting lots of interviews and listening to lots of opinions, we developed some general guidelines and recommended the appointment of a staff committee to refine the guidelines. HR supported the work of this advisory group, which led to the initial development of the Forum.
How can staff employees work more effectively with HR—and particularly with your successor?
Look for areas of mutual interest and work together with open and honest communication.
As you look five and ten years into the future for employees at UNC-Chapel Hill, what do you see? What do you hope for, for us? And what do you feel more cautious about?
I’m not sure that I have any special ability to see into the future, but I would say that UNC-Chapel Hill is a special place that values and respects the contributions of all faculty and staff. I'd encourage all employees to participate in respectful dialogue and communication about critical issues. As an alum and a retiree, I'm counting on those who follow to keep it a very special place! I've been honored to be a part of this great institution!
by Steve Hutton
In the last two years, a number of employees have contacted me about situations in which a large age difference between employees seems to be a contributing factor. A literature search revealed that a number of Human Resource experts have published on this topic of generational differences. Here are some of their insights.
Usually four generations are delineated: the Veterans, born prior to 1944, whose experiences were shaped by the Great Depression and World War II; the Baby Boomers, born between 1943 and 1960, who were raised in a period of optimism and opportunity; the Xers, born between 1960 and 1980, who were often latch-key kids, technologically savvy but skeptical and wary due to events like Nixon’s resignation and the AIDS epidemic; and the Nexters, born after 1980, the children of Baby Boomers who are often more optimistic than their parents, less challenged by racial and gender stereotypes, and more global in their perspective.i
In recognizing generational differences, we should not fall into the trap of stereotyping. While I’m a Baby Boomer and recognize many Boomer characteristics in myself, I’m also acquainted with fellow Boomers who resemble Xers or Nexters. Similarly, I know younger employees who share my Boomer traits.
Communication styles also seem to be a critical distinguishing characteristic. “Younger generations are geared to working in a fast-paced environment and getting information on a whim. Short, abrupt communication may occur and leave out important details that others may need to know in order to provide adequate responses. Older generations may overinform, causing confusion or extra work in sifting out pertinent information.”ii
There are also multiple perspectives on the nature of work itself. As one consulting CEO noted, “management should…realise that younger workers' perspective has been shaped by the often-negative corporate experience of their parents ‘Many saw their father or mother used by the corporation and then discarded. Younger people have seen the cost to their parents' livelihood and emotional well-being, and are determined not to get caught in the same trap. So they put their own happiness and contentment first.’"iii This challenges managers to adopt varied methods to motivate different age groups.
Acting in recognition of intergenerational differences, however, must be distinguished from actions that constitute legally-defined age discrimination. “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. The ADEA's protections apply to both employees and job applicants. Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his/her age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation, benefits, job assignments, and training.”iv
“It's the fastest-growing category of complaints received by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC). In fiscal year 2004, the EEOC received 17,837 age-discrimination claims. ‘We have a youth culture in this country where younger is better than older,’ says Tom Osborne, senior attorney with the AARP Foundation in Washington, DC.”v
While the legal definition of “age discrimination” covers only acts by management toward a subordinate employee (or job applicant), the terms “age harassment” and “ageism” encompass actions by one employee toward another. For example, the University of Liverpool’s HR manual states, “Age discrimination is based on attitudes which are prejudicial to people based on their chronological age. This is most often associated with discrimination against older people but can also be used against younger people. In the context of the University setting ‘youth’ may be associated with inexperience, while age may be associated with inflexibility, slowness and an inability to learn. Ageism becomes institutionalised when these attitudes become part of the organisation’s structures and systems. Examples of ageism harassment and bullying include: The use of derogatory remarks, such as ‘senile’ and ‘over the hill’… ageist jokes and derogatory remarks about personal appearance;… persistent dismissal of a person’s views on the basis of their age.”vi
So for both managers and non-managers, resolving intergenerational conflict requires techniques similar to those for resolving other types of conflict: good communication and improved understanding and appreciation of others’ perspectives and motivations. For managers in particular, however, actions to ameliorate intergenerational tensions must not lead to legally-defined age discrimination.
It may also be helpful for all of us to periodically recall Pablo Picasso’s sentiment: “It takes a long time to become young.”
----------------------------
i. Zemke, Ron et al. Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace. New York: AMACOM, 1999.
ii. Wildrick, Kate. “Intergenerational Miscommunication in the Workplace.” http://management.monster.com/articles/communication%5Fbetween%5Fgenerations/?WT.mc_n=MNL000218
iii. “Intergenerational conflict threatens workplace harmony.” http://www.management-issues.com/display_page.asp?section=research&id=2414
iv. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. http://www.eeoc.gov/types/age.html
v. Alcorn, Ellen. “Avoid Age Bias in the Workplace.” http://careersat50.monster.com/articles/age/
vi. University of Liverpool. http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:WRjGvmyru1kJ:www.liv.ac.uk/hr/policies/Policies/Harassment_Policy_Definitions.doc+ageism+harassment&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Forum Planning New Website for Staff Employees
Surf the official UNC-Chapel Hill website long enough and you’ll find a page extolling the virtues of the faculty here. Surf a little longer and you’ll find a page trumpeting the opportunities for students and encouraging applicants.
Surf a little longer, still—and you’ll find that there is hardly any mention of staff employees anywhere to be found. There is no page that extols the contributions of staff to the mission of the University, nor is there a page that trumpets the University as a good place for potential employees to find a job or build a career.
The UNC-Chapel Hill Employee Forum wants to change that by creating a web site about working at UNC, from the staff employee point of view. In addition to highlighting the contributions of employees and promoting the University as a career opportunity, the site will provide easy-to-find links to information that is relevant to staff employees but may be hard to find in other locations.
Vicki Behrens, a Forum delegate from Division 9, is spearheading this new effort and is looking for your input. What are the good things about working at UNC? What would you say to potential employees? What can you tell someone based on your experience at UNC that could make a positive difference in their work life here? What should every employee know that they might not be aware of? What pieces of information about work life at UNC would you like to see made more easily available?
You can share your ideas with Vicki by emailing her at pixie@email.unc.edu or calling her at 962-4799. Or, if you prefer anonymity, you can use the Forum’s Survey Monkey collection site at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=970603207789 to submit your ideas and offer your comments.
New Hoops to Jump Through: Basic Employment Eligibility
As of January 1st, people wanting to work at UNC-Chapel Hill will have their applications scrutinized like never before.
Thanks to a law passed by the NC General Assembly last year, all state agencies and universities have to participate in a “pilot” federal (DHHS) program that requires employers to verify the identity and work eligibility of every potential new hire (including temps and students) against a federal database of social security and immigration records. At UNC, this will amount to about 12,000 individual verifications annually.
The cost of fulfilling this new mandate will be about $100,000 per year, including the cost of adding two full-time positions to handle the job. The Legislature did not appropriate any extra funds to help state agencies and universities defray the costs involved.
Before this new law, potential hires only had to be checked for employment eligibility (legal residence or visa status) and for any criminal history.
Severe weather in many states has forced the cancellation of blood drives, while cold and flu problems have kept donors away from other drives. The result is a dangerous shortage in our blood supply—less than a one-day supply of type B negative, A negative and type O blood.
The Red Cross is working hard to make sure that everyone who needs blood will have what they need to survive.
To help, you can donate at an upcoming campus blood drive. With supervisor permission, you can count this as work time.
Go to http://givesblood.org/go.php?bdc=259380 and sign up for a drive soon. And take a friend with you!
Opinion: Thoughts on the Tuition Increase for Students
Mike Hawkins, Employee Forum Delegate, Division 9
How do we spend what we have, regardless of its source?
At UNC we used to try to fund as deep AND as broad an array of services as we could for all segments of the university. Today I think UNC's administration takes our money and spends it on people, products and services that only impact the few—and those few are already well off. Our state, with its corporate giveaways, does the same thing.
At UNC and in state government, we are forgetting that attraction to a university or to a state is because of the depth and quality of the resources and life provided. You have to keep up that array of services in order to do that. But this negative trend is very real from my point of view, and it will cause us problems sooner then we think
A bargain is only a bargain when you get something of value at a good price, especially over time. Our trend at UNC, IMHO, is to provide less that costs more.
Return to the Employee Forum Home Page
Contact a Forum Delegate via our on-line roster
Return to Top