So they filed a public disclosure request on the salaries, bonuses and other special pay given to Washington Management Service managers in their agency from 1999 to 2007.
The data proved their hunch was right.
In the eight years between 1999 and 2007, line-level staff received pay raises totaling 27.8 percent, while the total for Washington Management Service employees was 41.9 percent. With compounding, that's about a 15 percent differential between management and non-management staff.
The special management pay comes from "growth and development" raises and bonuses, none of which are available to line-level workers. Any pay increases for line-level workers come from what they negotiate with the state through their contract.
Throughout the agency the amount spent on (growth and development pay) for managers was $492,496 last January. Cash bonuses were also awarded in the amount of $39,346 to specific individuals while the economy was tanking.
"We believe these management bonuses should be eliminated," said Greg Devereux, executive director of the Washington Federation of State Employees. "It's a way to find revenue in these tough times to preserve quality services in Ecology and other agencies."
The Ecology WMS Salary Report (Ecology BU Bulletin 12/2008) appears below and on WFSE.org.
The union will initiate similar analyses in other agencies as a way to trim the budget while minimizing the need for layoffs and other cuts in public services.
The Washington Management Service was created in 1993 as a separate personnel system within the executive branch of state government. But it grew from about 445 when it started to a high of about 5,300 in 2005. After a cut of 1,000 management positions ordered by Gov. Chris Gregoire in 2005, it's believed WMS now stands at about 4,000 positions.
There have been several unsuccessful legislative attempts in recent years to trim the size of the Washington Management Service.
WFSE Ecology Bargaining Unit Bulletin - December 2008
Salary Comparison
– Some employees are “more equal” than others
Have you wondered how compensation works for the managers in the Washington Management Service (WMS) in the agency? Union activists and stewards in the bargaining unit wondered too, considering how hard we’ve had to fight for cost of living increases (COLAs).
After making requests for WMS salary information WFSE filed a public disclosure request (PDR) on our behalf to find out about the compensation, including bonuses, paid to Ecology’s WMS managers over the eight year period from 1999 through 2007. The PDR was filed to answer two questions:
1. What was the total compensation of WMS managers including salary raises (also termed growth and development or G&D), COLAS, and bonuses (recognition payments or lump sum awards); and
2. How did increases in WMS compensation compare with salary increases for Ecology staff?
Compensation for Managers
Types of monetary compensation given to WMS managers fall into three categories. G&D increases are awarded based on performance. COLAs are granted by the legislature and by contrast are given to non-union employees across the board. Finally, bonuses, or lump sum payments, are also granted based on performance considerations.
The information provided was disturbing not only in regard to bonuses paid, but also to the salary increases given to managers.
As can be seen from Table 1 Ecology managers did very well from 1999 through 2007. Managers received no salary increases or bonuses in 2003, but received increasingly larger compensation awards in other years over time. The added compounding effect of yearly raises effectively increased the average salary over the eight years by 46.2%.
The average arithmetic G&D increase for WMS during that period was 3.04% giving an average total increase of 24.2%. With compounding over eight years taken into account, the net increase in growth and development compensation from 1999 to 2007 was 27.1%.
The average legislative COLA over the same period, also given to WMS managers, was 17.7%. With compounding over six years (no COLAs were given in 2001 and 2002) the net increase in compensation from just COLAs was 19.1%. The actual compensation between 1999 and 2007, therefore, increased by 46.2%.
Bonuses or lump sum rewards (not included in Table 1) became common starting in 2003, however bonuses are not given to every manager in any given year. The average bonus paid out to WMS managers during 2004 through 2007 was $1,521. Based on a salary of $80,000/year a $1500 bonus would add approximately 1.5% to 2% to the total compensation for the year.
[Refer to SLIDE 16 above]
Ecology staff salaries have, on average, not kept up with WMS salaries. The breakdown of Ecology staff salary increases including, COLAs, and, where applicable, catch-up pay, the L-step increase and the 2007 health care rebate for mid-range (3-level) staff is shown in Table 2 below.
[Refer to SLIDE 21 above]
The average arithmetic mean salary increase for Ecology staff is 27.8%. The actual increase with compounding over six years is 31.2%.
The fact that salaries for some Ecology staff classifications have increased by over 30% is a positive outcome of collective bargaining. Unfortunately, salaries for the environmental specialist and environmental planner classes, which comprise over a third of Ecology staff, have not kept pace as shown in the chart below. The gap between managers and this large group has grown even wider.
Comparison
To make a meaningful comparison of compensation between WMS and classified staff it helps to use averages and to compound the increases to reflect the real impacts of increases. WMS bonuses are left out of this comparison due to the variability that complicates the analysis, however you can keep in mind that bonuses are above and beyond the numbers given.
With compounding, the actual differential between WMS and Ecology staff increased to 15%. This means WMS received 15% more in compensation than classified staff over the same time period.
Impacts of the System
No one who works in state government begrudges other employees when they seek to improve their compensation. However when you look at the numbers and the trends, it appears that as a group managers have been acting entirely in self-interest by granting each other raises and bonuses. Are managers that much more valuable than the employees who do the work upon which their increases are based?
The sheer number of managers who received a compensation increase shows that such increases have become routine. Yet the criteria in the WMS Guidelines and Handbook have not changed; increases should be based on either the demonstrated growth of the manager in their position or for outstanding performance above and beyond normal expectations. Are managers truly gifted, laden with MBAs and MPAs, as described in the WMS guidelines?
Funding for WMS Compensation
According to an untitled, draft memo from the former Employee Services director, Joy St. Germaine, additional legislative appropriations for employee salary increases are not given. According to the memo, OFM expects salary increases to be covered by vacancy savings.
In Ecology’s case this also includes unused travel budget, allocated unused training, unpurchased equipment, and left over contracts and grant funds. Managers then develop a spending plan which, if kept under the allocations, leaves funds to pay for bonuses and G&D increases.Although this funding approach may work well for manager’s salaries it directly and negatively impacts Ecology staff by reducing funding for promotions, training, travel and project work. In turn, the denial of training and travel opportunities limits professional development, and in some cases prevents employees from getting the job done. The cost of leaving funded positions vacant also takes a toll on staff that must absorb the workload in most cases while the position goes unfilled.
Having just emerged from an informal reduction in force in the Water Quality Program, doubt is further cast on the integrity of the WMS compensation process as a reward for performance. Underestimating revenue flow from permit fees, and inattention to expenditures resulted in the program going into the red and almost led to the layoff of a number of WQ staff. Managers in the WQ program received G&D increases and bonuses in January of 2008, along with the rest of the agency, while their program’s budget crisis was taking form.
Throughout the agency the amount spent on G&D for managers was $492,496 last January. Cash bonuses were also awarded in the amount of $39,346 to specific individuals while the economy was tanking.
During the kind of difficult economic times that the state is presently experiencing we expect managers will work collaboratively with us to mitigate the impacts of reduced revenue streams. If the lack of money forces Ecology to cut back on staff advancement opportunities or in staff reductions, WMS managers must share in the pain or be willing to sacrifice the significant gains they provided themselves over the past eight years. Why must classified staff bear the burden of layoffs or lack of promotional and professional development opportunities?
The WMS system essentially places managers, and the budget planners (also WMS) who work for them, in a situation where their interests are aligned toward political outcomes. It is our managers that will be called to deal with the budget crisis and to formulate staffing plans if there will be a reduction in force. Because we are divided by a separate and not equal system of compensation, we are not “all in the same boat.” How can we trust the process and the managers in charge of it if our interests are not aligned?
What we’ve done so far
When the PDR information was first analyzed last summer the importance of the data was immediately evident. The contract bargaining team was provided copies, and used the information in last minute negotiations last summer. WFSE executive director Greg Devereaux and elected president Carol Dotlich provided Governor Gregoire with copies as well as to individuals within OFM during pre-contract discussions. Greg and Carol continue to pursue the issues of fundamental compensation inequities in their regular discussions with the Governor, and are pursuing similar PDR requests at other agencies to evaluate the issue statewide.
[Refer to SLIDE 23 above]
The powerpoint was also provided to representatives from Ecology’s management, and we offered to meet with director Jay Manning to explain our analysis and discuss its implications. So far our offers to meet with him have been declined.
What’s next?
One of the most concerning aspects of funding for WMS bonuses and salary increases is the veil of secrecy that has been placed over the entire process. Unlike salary information for classified staff WMS salaries and bonuses are not published, nor is any information provided regarding their bonuses. The foundation of good government is transparency; in how it operates to make decisions and how it manages money. It should not have been necessary to resort to public disclosure to obtain this information. As a start we are advocating the public posting of manager compensation increases.
If there is a reduction in force, formal or informal, the union must be notified and provided the opportunity to bargain over the impacts. We will need to call on individual members to help with the bargaining process, and volunteers to serve on teams to meet with our managers.
Please consider stepping forward to help the bargaining unit represent your interests as Ecology is faced with the budget crisis.
Download pdf of the Ecology BU Bulletin 2008
Posts
1 comment:
Hi,
You have nice blog. Numerous individuals these days don't know whether they're obtaining appropriate salary for their profession. To be clear one can check online salary comparison websites to know what other corporations provide for the same position. For instance to compare salary of an analyst one can just type analyst salary in a salary comparison website like Whatsalary.com
Post a Comment