Pay for performance-- Can it be fair? (part 2)

The Sun appears to agree with the Guild on two parts necessary to a fair evaluation system---that ratings will be based on work that takes place in the workplace, and that employees must be informed at the start of the review period of the job requirements and goals upon which they will be evaluated.

The Sun noted its agreement in detailed questioning this week in bargaining, but has yet to offer a written counter to the Guild's Jan. 20 proposal. One is promised for next week.

The Guild proposed on Wednesday that all employees receive some pay from the pay pool, with employees who meet requirements receiving $14 per week in 2005 and $15 per week in 2006 (this year, employees get the full $24 contractual raise). As negotiated in June, $14/week and $15/per week per employee will go into a pay-for-performance pool. In July of each year, all the money in the pool will be distributed. Evaluations will be done for all employees in the spring and will be a key factor in the distribution of pay-for-performance pool money.

The Sun did not respond. Additional disturbing and confusing matters arose during this week's bargaining.

The Sun says the Performance Review rating is an important factor, but not the only factor, in management's decision to award extra pay. HR VP Dale Cohen clarified that raises could be based, in part, on comparing your work to others in your department, and on whether your work group or team met its group goals. So an employee, says The Sun, might not necessarily be awarded extra pay if she or he meets her or his goals but the department doesn't meet its goals. It's at management's discretion.

The Guild argued that an employee meeting job requirements and goals should, of course, receive extra pay, even if the department overall did not meet goals. Because the key question is: can it be fair otherwise? The Sun did not respond.

The Guild has asked The Sun to discuss how it will monitor the system to avoid discrimination and pay inequity outcomes. After all, we told them, if the process is not fair or not perceived to be fair, a "high performance" culture can become only a discriminatory culture. The Sun says the managers and the VPs will review the year's results but it has no plans at all to conduct any pay analysis to spot unintended consequences: trends that favor, or discriminate, for obvious factors (age, gender, race, for example) and not so obvious factors. Managers, The Sun said, will be vigilant. Nice. Unfortunately, even well intentioned people take actions based on their own experiences and comfort zones. And bias results, sometimes unintentionally.

The Sun expressed no interest in several aspects of the Guild's proposal, including the 360-performance review of supervisors. The Sun, stating that the review is not disciplinary, says a steward should not be present in the meetings, but noted that if an employee requested a steward it would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Bargaining resumes Wednesday, Feb. 4 at 10:30 at the University of Baltimore, 11 Mount Royal Ave. (corner of Charles and Mount Royal), and continues Thursday and Friday.

A Guild membership meeting is scheduled for Thursday, Feb. 5 at 6:00 p.m. in the Education Hall of St. Ignatius Church. We'll discuss the Performance Review negotiations, as well as other critical issues affecting Sun workers. All members are welcome, and urged to attend! Please, come share your thoughts and concerns!

- Lori Calderone, for the bargaining committee