SURVEY OF JOB EVALUATION AND PAY SYSTEMS USED BY The Task Force made a general survey of job evaluation and pay systems of all 50 State governments. A brief summary of findings is: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. While many of the states have more than one personnel system, the most prevalent arrangement is a common job evaluation and pay system which covers most state merit employees. Frequently, however, certain specialized state functions, e.g., colleges or hospitals; or certain occupational groups, such as doctors, teachers, or nurses, are covered under separate systems. Position classification continues to be the basic technique used in evaluating positions. Forty-eight of the 50 states use this system for all or part of their positions. A significant number use other techniques--i.e., rank-in-man, point rating, or factor comparison--as supplementary techniques in the application of standards to certain groups of positions. In fact, there appears to be a trend toward the use of various quantitative techniques to supplement or to operate alongside the existing position classification standards. There is one marked difference in the position classification systems used by the states as compared to that currently used in the General Schedule. The state systems generally provide greater flexibility in making internal occupational adjustments better to reflect pay comparability. Only a few have a single, monolithic classification grade system such as that in the General Schedule. About one-third of the states indicated significant problems existing in the administration of their job evaluation systems. For the most part, these problems are associated with the need for better standards or guidelines for use in the allocation of certain groups of positions--i.e., higher administrative positions, specialized high-demand occupations, or highly organized groups. More than one-half of the states either have more than one pay schedule or expressed the need for additional pay schedules to cover special categories of employees. The lack of competitive pay schedules (with private industry and, in many cases, the Federal Government) causes problems in recruiting and retaining adequate staffs. In union-management relations, the states are faced with growing unionization of their employees. Most of the states are cautiously feeling their way in developing the legal and administrative framework within which to deal with employee organizations. JOB EVALUATION AND PAY SYSTEMS in CANADA, GREAT BRITAIN, AND AUSTRALIA A. B. Canadian System A brief summary of the Canadian system is incorporated into the House Post Office and Civil Service Subcommittee on Position Classification's report on job evaluation and ranking in the Federal Government. This summary outlines the history of job evaluation in the Canadian civil service, coverage of the system, and events leading up to its major renovation. these events, the following are the most significant: Of 1. The Glassco Commission Report in 1960, which recommended the adoption of a more systematic approach to job evaluation. 2. The Government's endorsement of collective bargaining in the civil service in 1963. 3. The establishment of a preparatory committee in 1964, and Parliament's adoption of the recommendations of the preparatory committee in 1967. The Canadians are nearing the completion of implementation of their new system. The classification plan includes six primary categories or groupings: These categories are further broken down into 76 occupational groups. Occupational groups are based on the nature of the work and identifiable outside labor markets. Through this grouping process, the government has struck a balance between the requirements of relating government jobs to the outside pay market and the requirements for internal equity between positions. The system permits varying approaches to job evaluation and pay for different groups of employees. Within the 76 occupational groups, there are eight different methods of job evaluation. The most prevalent method is a factor comparison system, with points and benchmark jobs identified. The government negotiates pay for each occupational group separately. Bargaining units were predetermined consistent with the occupational groups. This has required some rearrangement of representation by employee unions operating in the civil service area. In general, both management and the employee organizations are satisfied with the progress made in the implementation of the Canadian system. However, there are many items yet to be resolved in the bargaining process. British System The British have a sophisticated system of job classification. It is a system of upper and lower classes in which distinctions are based not only on the work performed but also on the educational background of the individual. An employee C. generally does not progress to the next higher level within a class without demonstrating a proficiency to do the full range of work at that level. Once he attains the higher rank, it remains with him as long as he is in the government service regardless of his individual assignment. It has been practically impossible for an employee to move across class lines. Thus his education and preparation before entering the government service play a controlling role throughout his career. Sweeping changes were recommended in the British system by the Fulton Committee which was established in 1966. In brief, the conclusions and recommendations of the committee were: 1. The introduction of a common grading structure; 2. Establishment of a systematic job evaluation system to replace the class 3. Establishing training arrangements that lead to faster promotion; and 4. Certain other changes regarding employment and organization of the British civil service commission. To date, the British government has completed a major restructuring of the executive levels and elimination of certain barriers between these executive levels and lower classes within the system. The other aspects of the Fulton report are currently under joint study by labor and management in the British civil service. Australian System The Australian system provides for the grouping of positions into four main divisions. The first division is composed of permanent heads of departments. These are the highest level career positions in their government. The second division includes executive positions and senior professional jobs in the more important offices of the government. The third division is composed of professional, administrative, and clerical positions. The fourth division includes certain entry-level and low-skill operating positions. These divisions represent not only broad divisions in level of difficulty of work, but also distinct differences in entry qualification requirements. Within each division there are occupational groupings which are generally comparable to class series in our General Schedule classification system. The Australian system provides for standards or guidelines for allocating positions within each of these occupational structures. Since 1961, the Australian government has been engaged in a review of all occupational groups within their system to see whether they may be simplified in terms of groupings and structures. They have also been experimenting with the use of a new standards format which appears to be similar to the factor comparison benchmark system used by the Canadians. Pay rates for each occupational group are determined on the basis of comparison with industry and through negotiations with the appropriate employee union. MODELS OF EVALUATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPED BY THE TASK FORCE A. Model for Executive Evaluation System 1. Coverage 2. 3. This section pertains to the development of a system for position evaluation to be applied to executive positions in the Federal Government. Incumbents. of these positions play a highly significant role in the management of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. They are responsible for planning, directing, and executing major programs throughout the departments and agencies of the U. S. Government. Incumbents of these positions often recommend, develop, or approve policies to govern their program areas. The Federal executive is concerned with defining program objectives, staffing an organization, coordinating the efforts of organizational components, and evaluating the performance of subordinates who manage the various units under his control. He is normally held accountable for the attainment of program objectives. Relationship to Federal Executive Service The President has submitted proposed legislation to establish a Federal Executive Service, embracing approximately 7,000 employees now in grades GS-16/18. That system covers the appointment, compensation and personnel functions applicable to Federal executives. The proposed Executive Evaluation System could be utilized by agencies in carrying out their obligations under the Federal Executive Service with respect to setting rates of pay. EES could assist in the ranking of positions for pay-setting purposes. Methodology The Task Force has developed a tailor-made job evaluation system for executive positions. This project was accomplished with the assistance of Cresap, McCormick and Paget, Inc., Management Consultants. The system was designed around an initial sample of 635 positions in 29 Federal agencies. These positions are presently classified in grades GS-16/18, or at equivalent levels under other pay systems. By eliminating duplicate positions and positions for which current data were not readily available, the sample was reduced to a final figure of 368 positions. The 29 sample agencies covered 11 cabinet departments, the large independent agencies, a variety of boards, committees and commissions, small independent agencies, as well as certain legislative agencies, i.e., General Accounting Office and Library of Congress. A factor ranking system with points was developed for evaluating these positions. Four factors were utilized, with the following titles, definitions, and weights: a. Job Requirements. This factor measures the range of information or understanding of necessary subject matter, and the skills needed to apply this knowledge (Weight of 35%). b. Difficulty of Work. This factor measures the nature of work in terms of the magnitude, variety and scope of activities assigned, as well as the types of decisions and actions necessary to perform the activities effectively (Weight of 25%). |