By Liz Hansen Questions regularly come in to Compensation Services and other units within Human Resources and Risk Management on various aspects of the university's salary program. Lately, the questions have focused on three major areas--the 2 percent general increase on Oct. 1, 1996, the processing of merits and the staff salary program for the 1997-98 fiscal year. The following discussion is intended to provide clarification in these three areas. The October 1996 salary increase One of the most frequently asked questions during the month of November has been, "Why didn't I get any more money in my Nov. 1 paycheck? I thought there was a 2 percent salary increase as of October 1, 1996." Most employees are referring to the deans' and directors' memo #96-100, dated July 25, 1996, that stated that the universitywide salary grade structure will be adjusted by 2 percent effective Oct. 1, 1996. This range adjustment was implemented for eligible employees, but does not mean that all employees automatically saw a 2 percent increase in their paychecks. Salary ranges were adjusted upward by 2 percent only for employees in job titles not exclusively represented by unions. For employees represented by a union, all terms and conditions of employment, including salary actions such as the October 2 percent range adjustment, are subject to the collective bargaining negotiation process and the resulting contracts. The bargaining cycles and contract effective dates take place at various times of year and may or may not coincide with the timing of salary actions for nonrepresented employees. Look at a scenario for employees in the Clerical Unit (CX) in a job title such as "____" (blank) assistant II. They are represented by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and their contract was still in the negotiations process in October. Those employees did not see an increase in their paychecks Nov. 1. However, the contract has since been negotiated, ratified and includes a 2 percent range adjustment retroactive to Oct. 1. The increase is expected to be implemented in employees' February '97 paychecks. Therefore, it is not uncommon in campus and medical center departments to have a (represented) "____" assistant II in one office who did not receive the Oct. 1 increase because his or her contract was still in negotiations and a non-exclusively represented "____" assistant II-supervisor in an office down the hall who did receive the 2 percent raise on that date. How does an employee know if they are non-exclusively represented or represented and covered by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement? At the Davis campus, the University Professional and Technical Employees union represents employees involved in technical (TX) and research (RX) jobs; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees represents employees in service (SX), clerical (CX) and patient care technical (EX) jobs; the California Nurses' Association represents employees in nursing (NX) jobs; and the Federated University Police Officers' Association represents police officers (PA). There are a couple of quick ways to check: * ask your supervisor, or * check the Salary Scales Manual on the Human Resources and Risk Management home Web page at (http://hr.ucdavis.edu/). Look up your job title or title code. The header will say "No Bargaining Unit" if your job is non-exclusively represented or it will name the bargaining unit, e.g., "Clerical and Allied Services" for clerical positions, if your job is represented by a union. For merit-only based salaries For employees whose jobs have merit-based, open salary ranges (former Administrative and Professional Staff and Management and Professional programs members) instead of step salary ranges, a salary range adjustment does NOT mean additional money in paychecks no matter what the percentage of increase. It simply means that the minimum and maximum of the salary range are adjusted by the stated percentage and, unless an employee is at the minimum of the range, this action has no effect on employees' paychecks. Employees in merit-based programs receive pay increases based on their annual performance appraisal and merit award. Why is the merit cycle askew? The processing of merits for employees in step-pay structures is another topic that generates questions such as, "Why are merits always delayed? Why are January merits delayed to July and July merits delayed to January?" The answer to this is tied to the state budget and goes back to fiscal year 1990-91 when the state gave the university only the equivalent of one-half year merit budget, e.g., 1 percent vs. the 2 percent of prior years. Thus, 1990-91 was the first year that the term "delayed merits" was used, based on the university's assumption that those "missing funds" would be recouped in subsequent years and merits restored to the normal cycles. Recouping funds from the state did not happen as a result of further budget constraints. We went into a cycle of delayed merits in 1990-91, no merits in 1991-92, full merits but no range adjustment in 1992-93, half-year funding and delayed merits again in 1993-94 and to the present. The cost to restore merits to the normal cycles is estimated at $9 million systemwide in state funds alone. The cost is even greater when employees on soft funds (grant monies, etc.) are included. Subsequent to the 1990-91 fiscal year, the university had to consider two options regarding the merit process: * Not pay merits at all to any employee for a full year to recoup the estimated $9 million and get back on track. * Pay partial merits on a six-month delayed basis. The decision was made on a systemwide basis to continue the university's commitment to giving merit increases, thus requiring a continued six-month delay in order to fund the merits. Since 1990-91, the university has received less funding from the state and may never recoup those "missing funds." Is it time to recognize this and drop the term "delayed" merits? Should the university move to one merit date? If so, which should it be--January, March, July or October? The campus and UC Davis Health System are currently addressing these issues on a local basis. In addition, a cross-functional systemwide work group begins looking at the issues and problems surrounding the merit process this month. Upcoming staff salaries The third issue has to do with staff salaries for the upcoming year. The 1997-98 budget proposal adopted by the UC Board of Regents in November implemented the second year of a three-year plan to restore faculty salaries to levels competitive with comparison institutions. The press release announcing the regents' adoption of the 1997-98 budget proposal did not mention staff salaries for the upcoming year and employees are wondering what to expect in the upcoming year. Language in the budget proposal that was adopted by the regents did include a request for a 2 percent general (range adjustment) increase for university staff. However, it should be noted that the budget proposal is a request to the Legislature and a final decision has not been made. Second, if the 2 percent general increase is granted, funding will be distributed to individual employees based on the factors discussed above. Additional money for merits has been requested from the state and is expected to be about the same as in the previous year. For more information, contact Liz Hansen, Compensation Services, at 752-1765 or via e-mail at eahansen@ucdavis.edu.