Steve Traynor gives some advice on how to implement job-evaluation schemes without wrecking morale and generating negative headlines in the local press
Many local authorities have been putting off the inevitable for the last few years.
A new deadline has been set for concluding single-status arrangements by April 2007. So now, in the rush to meet this deadline, the headline news stories in local press and radio are ‘1,250 staff suffer wage cuts’, or ‘Cuts in services to pay for wage increases for 700 town hall staff’.
What on earth are we doing to ourselves in local government? Why are we inflicting these ridiculous results on ourselves which hike up hundreds of salaries, which aren’t affordable, and knocking down the wages of hundreds more because some precious scoring system says we’ve done it wrong all these years.
This wholesale wrecking of existing pay structures cannot be right and is certainly not necessary.
If job evaluation is the preferred solution, that’s fine, provided it is used properly to reflect existing pay structures and pay profiles.
In most organisations there is nothing seriously wrong with existing pay structures. They have been working well since 1974, and have done the job of recruiting and retaining employees with acceptable levels of turnover.
The rates mostly reflect the market levels with a few exceptions which are corrected with market supplements. Fair enough, we are now all frightened of equal value claims, and yes, we haven’t been good at paying men and women on equal terms, mainly because of bonus and productivity payments which we thought were a great idea in the 1970s to make sure the manual and craft workers didn’t shirk on the job. Got to make sure white van man does a decent day’s work rather than driving around all day clocking up the mileage... of course, office staff wouldn’t do that.
So what is the solution ?
It’s not rocket science, but it relies on good relationships with employers and trade unions.
For example:
l do choose a tried, tested and well-established job-evaluation scheme, such as the Greater London GLPC scheme
l don’t waste money on computerised systems if you have less than 1,000 employees
l do find yourself an experienced consultant to train your evaluation panels and help you implement the results with consistency and consensus
l do recognise that the job-evaluation system is a management/trade union tool to help you create your pay profile around your existing pay structures
l don’t allow the job-evaluation system to demolish the existing pay structures. Use the system to complement what you already have
l don’t spend months pouring over multi-page questionnaires taking a half-day meeting for each job with a job analyst, a manager, an employee, and a trade union representative
l do use a good-quality job description – which you should have already – and two sides of A4 for an additional information sheet
l do have a good look at an organisation which has completed the process painlessly
l do have a thought for those few staff who will lose out, and develop a strategy for looking after them.
The end result will provide an inevitable few grade increases and decreases, many of which you would have expected anyway, looking at your equal pay audit.
The remainder will remain the same. Your employees will be confident with the results because they will trust the scheme and the system.
There will be very few appeals and the final cost will be manageable. n
Steve Traynor is honorary treasurer for the Public Sector People Managers’ Association and an HR consultant
A new deadline has been set for concluding single-status arrangements by April 2007. So now, in the rush to meet this deadline, the headline news stories in local press and radio are ‘1,250 staff suffer wage cuts’, or ‘Cuts in services to pay for wage increases for 700 town hall staff’.
What on earth are we doing to ourselves in local government? Why are we inflicting these ridiculous results on ourselves which hike up hundreds of salaries, which aren’t affordable, and knocking down the wages of hundreds more because some precious scoring system says we’ve done it wrong all these years.
This wholesale wrecking of existing pay structures cannot be right and is certainly not necessary.
If job evaluation is the preferred solution, that’s fine, provided it is used properly to reflect existing pay structures and pay profiles.
In most organisations there is nothing seriously wrong with existing pay structures. They have been working well since 1974, and have done the job of recruiting and retaining employees with acceptable levels of turnover.
The rates mostly reflect the market levels with a few exceptions which are corrected with market supplements. Fair enough, we are now all frightened of equal value claims, and yes, we haven’t been good at paying men and women on equal terms, mainly because of bonus and productivity payments which we thought were a great idea in the 1970s to make sure the manual and craft workers didn’t shirk on the job. Got to make sure white van man does a decent day’s work rather than driving around all day clocking up the mileage... of course, office staff wouldn’t do that.
So what is the solution ?
It’s not rocket science, but it relies on good relationships with employers and trade unions.
For example:
l do choose a tried, tested and well-established job-evaluation scheme, such as the Greater London GLPC scheme
l don’t waste money on computerised systems if you have less than 1,000 employees
l do find yourself an experienced consultant to train your evaluation panels and help you implement the results with consistency and consensus
l do recognise that the job-evaluation system is a management/trade union tool to help you create your pay profile around your existing pay structures
l don’t allow the job-evaluation system to demolish the existing pay structures. Use the system to complement what you already have
l don’t spend months pouring over multi-page questionnaires taking a half-day meeting for each job with a job analyst, a manager, an employee, and a trade union representative
l do use a good-quality job description – which you should have already – and two sides of A4 for an additional information sheet
l do have a good look at an organisation which has completed the process painlessly
l do have a thought for those few staff who will lose out, and develop a strategy for looking after them.
The end result will provide an inevitable few grade increases and decreases, many of which you would have expected anyway, looking at your equal pay audit.
The remainder will remain the same. Your employees will be confident with the results because they will trust the scheme and the system.
There will be very few appeals and the final cost will be manageable. n
Steve Traynor is honorary treasurer for the Public Sector People Managers’ Association and an HR consultant
