Job Evaluation System (long)

[Steve Downing <s.downing@elec.canterbury.ac.nz>]

DISCLAMER:-  The following is my personal opinion only, I'm not telling you or
             anyone, what you must think or accept or reject!

      " Flame suit on "


The way that J.E. is being implemented currently, has some SERIOUS,
Short-comings! I believe that with the necessary modifications, it can
be turned into a useful and valuable improvement, on the old system.

Any system of J.E. or promotion/reclassification for staff, needs to be
able to be scrutinised by those staff.   i.e. It not only, needs to be
fair, but, must be, seen to be fair!

Staff who work under this system, need to know what levels of " Work Value "
they are required to provide, to be in, or to get into, any Classification
Band.

I cannot accept the "secret" grading of jobs without knowing the aproximate
limits of what I can be required to do for any particular grade.

This can be rectified and a measure of transparancy introduced by the
release of a set of guidelines or "Descriptors" for the eight bands
that have been created.

With these descriptors, one will be able to estimate their work value, and
then roughly which band they should fit into!

They will also be able to see, what, they would need to add to, or to
change in their current duties, to warrent a promotion.

It would also allow you to see if your position allows any growth, or if
you will
have to move to a different job, to be able to have a career at the
University!

Hopefully it will also stop the practise of say, replacing a T.O. who
retires or
leaves, with a person at say T.2. without removing or substantially
reducing the
duties and responsibilities required of the position.

This system of using Descriptors for each band is widely established at most
Australian Universities, and suprisingly, the world didn't end,and people
don't
get away with claming, to do much higher work values than they actually do. 

I am in the process of reworking a set of the Australian Descriptors, for use
as a starting point/discussion. 

My experience of the currently proposed system, shows that we need a
different style
of form to fill out. And to have help or coaching available, to reduce the
large
differences in the quality and amount of information reaching the
evaluation panels.

After all this, we still need to be able to figure out somehow, if we are
being offered
enough on the pay scales, for what in effect we are now contracting to do
as our duties!

e.g. are we generally giving then say 25% more value for 3-5% more pay, and
are the top
half of the bands going to be available or just the carrot in front of the
donkey?

Who will control promotions, the Registry? or the Departments or a
combination?

Lots to think about, and rember the current system is only on offer, it can
be modified,
rejected of accepted, your choice. 

Regards Steve



Steve Downing at
 Canterbury University
School of Electrical & Electronic Engineering
<s.downing@elec.canterbury.ac.nz>