Category — Labor
Talk Back: Union presses Ritter on pay-raise bill
May 21st, 2010 — Economy, Labor, Press, Talk Back
This story is getting a lot of press attention partially because the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and the Denver Post management don't like it. It's frustrating because neither group has taken the time to learn about problems with the current state compensation system and how this bill addresses them.
It's hard to understand why either group even cares about this bill; they apparently believe the bill will give some benefit to state employees (beyond general good management) and that goes against their general bias against employees.
Talk Back responds to media coverage with my comments in blue.
___
By Tim Hoover
The Denver Post
Posted: 05/20/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
The largest union representing state employees has launched a campaign urging Gov. Bill Ritter to sign legislation revamping the pay-raise system for state workers. >The effort by Colorado WINS comes amid worry over whether Ritter, who has expressed concerns about House Bill 1409, will veto the bill. Ritter's office has said only that it is giving the bill careful consideration.
"We need to do our due diligence to let the governor know this (bill) is a priority," said Bob Gibson, executive director of Colorado WINS.
The union's website urges WINS members to call the governor's office and express support for the bill, which would move the state from a pay system that is now based primarily on performance to one that would, in theory, grant gradual pay increases as long as workers get satisfactory evaluations.
The current system is not "based primarily on performance." It was originally called "Pay for Performance," but it never lived up to that name, The Ritter Administration changed the name to "Achievement Pay" is partial recognition that it lacks a performance component.
It doesn't even matter if the system includes a performance component or not. The Governor's Deputy Personnel Director testified in committee that the state does a "very bad" job of evaluating employee performance. Very little employee compensation has been based on performance and the minute amount that has been is awarded almost randomly.
"In the final hours of the 2010 Colorado Legislative session, Colorado WINS members helped to pass House Bill 1409 to eliminate the broken 'pay for performance' system," the website says. "But we're not done yet — we need to call Governor Ritter and urge him to sign HB 1409 into law."
Ritter officials have expressed concerns about whether the bill diminishes the governor's power to recommend raises. Under current law, the governor — in his budget recommendations — can call for performance-based pay hikes for employees, but they still must be approved by lawmakers, who write the budget. Ritter then can veto line items in the budget, if he chooses.
The state's current Achievement Pay system included two components: salary survey and performance pay. The Governor can recommend whatever he wants, but the legislature decides whether salary survey, achievement pay, or both get funded and how much money goes into them. The Governor could line-item-veto either of them, but that would kill all of the salary survey or all of the performance pay, not the amount that goes to individual departments or employees. In practice, of course, we haven't been putting any money into either of them. We've cut state employee salaries for this year and next year.
The bill would qualify state employees who are meeting performance standards for 12 annual incremental pay increases, but any pay hikes still would have to be approved by lawmakers. No pay increases would take effect for at least three years, and that's assuming the state had money to fund them.
State employees have had no raises the past two years and had furloughs in the current fiscal year ending in June. They face 2.5 percent pay cuts in the next fiscal year, on top of higher contributions they must make to their pensions.
Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, sponsored the pay-hike bill and said its prospects are shaky.
"The indication I've had is that he (Ritter) is probably going to veto it," said Pommer, who said the governor's office initially agreed to support the bill but got cold feet when the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce came out against it.
"This is the weird thing," Pommer said. "We had an agreement."
But Evan Dreyer, Ritter's spokesman, denied the office broke any deal.
"Not true," Dreyer said. "What's true is that with every piece of legislation, the governor has an open-door policy — where lawmakers, interested parties and constituent groups have the governor's ear and the ear of his staff.
"Not true," says I. Evan Dreyer is wrong. We had an agreement. The Governor's office told us what we would have to put into the bill to get the Governor's approval, we put it in the bill and the Governor's office said he would sign it. Two days later, the Governor's office told us the Governor's position had changed.
The Governor may have an open door-policy, but he's rarely familiar enough with a topic to actually negotiate it. His staff does that. It would be impractical to negotiate with the Governor himself on every issue.
Negotiating with the Governor's staff can be difficult. They, and we, have to assume that they have the authority to negotiate for the Governor. We know that their views can diverge from the Governor's, and that the Governor can change his mind; we're always mindful of that, and the staff is pretty good letting us know when they have to check with the Governor on a point.
I'm using the term "Governor" here in a generic sense. "Governor" doesn't necessarily mean the person; it's usually the consensus among the person and all of his aides. "We need to run this by the Governor," can mean reviewing it with the Governor's legal counsel or chief-of-staff.
To get back to the point, we negotiate all the time and we all know that things change, this was different.
"The legislative process is a dynamic process," he said. "Bills change as they move through committee from one chamber to the other and back to committees."
May 21, 2010 No Comments
Even asking is anti-job
April 28th, 2010 — Bills, Labor, Taxes & Fees
The anti-job attacks have hit a new level of absurdity. Now, even asking if a job-creation plan actually creates any jobs has become anti-job. Seriously.
We were considering a bill (HB10-1350) today that asks the Colorado Economic Development Commission to come up with a plan for determining if our supposedly job-creating subsidies and tax breaks really create jobs. Yes, that's asking the foxes to report on their success in guarding the hen house (more on that after the break), but even that was too much for the Governor and the Republicans.
While the Governor's crew and the chamber of commerce lobbyists were frantically trying to kill the bill from the lobby, Republicans on the House floor were calling the proposal anti-business and anti-job.
It wasn't clear from their comments if requiring job incentives to create jobs is anti-job, or if just asking if they create jobs is anti-job, but, does it matter?
Another argument against the bill was that it would send the wrong message to business. Really? What message would it send? That when he hand over money to businesses so they'll create jobs, we expect them to create jobs with it? That seems like the right message.
I think the wrong message would be that we're handing out subsidies and tax breaks and don't care if they create jobs or not.
Keep in mind that we hand over hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tax breaks every year in the name of creating jobs. Those tax breaks are why we have to cut school funding, raise tuition at colleges and universities and suspend the senior property tax exemption.
With those kinds of consequences, asking if we're getting our money's worth seems like a good idea.
The most discouraging part of the debate was that the Governor and the business lobby had already gutted the bill.
April 28, 2010 2 Comments
Meet the New Boss, Not the Same as the Old Boss
November 8th, 2007 — Labor
Some state employees call the last eight years the “Reign of Terror.” Even if that’s an exaggeration, it’s a fact that the state is far behind private companies in modern management. It’s not just uncomfortable for managers and employees, it’s costly and unproductive.
Every employee has a job to do, but competitive companies want more. They wring the most value out of every employee by making them part of a team that works together to constantly improve the company. They encourage and even expect employees look for efficiencies, make suggestions and help refine systems. That doesn’t happen much in Colorado state government.
I’ve personally met half a dozen people who quit the state out of frustration. They say managers disdained cost-saving innovations, ignored suggestions and even punished people for trying to change ineffective systems.
November 8, 2007 No Comments
