Salary and Tuition Comments from Staff Senate and Constituents
192 votes for Salary Option 1- Since 1995, the Senate has historically advocated that if the salary increase is less than 5%, it should be distributed across-the-board for everyone who receives a satisfactory evaluation or better
3. I think that the increase should be across the board.
4. You know whatever happens; we'll get the short end of the stick. Personally, I'm for across the board increases. Merit increases are too subjective. It's just a popularity contest with the boss's favorites getting the most. If we all meet the minimum requirements for getting a raise, we should all be rewarded. That's just my opinion
6. Since gas prices, health insurance and everything elseare on the rise I feel the whole 4.5 % should be given to anyone with a satisfactory or better evaluation. The University has not seen a decent raise in many years. If this is not acceptable I suggest a 3.0 or 3.5 % across the board and a 1 or 1 1/2% merit.
The University has many dedicated employees that would love to see a good raise once again even if it is just for this year and we go back to the 2 % next.
7. I'd say across the board. The University hasn't figured out how to give merit equally. We need a system in place before giving merit raises.
9. If less than 5%, it should be distributed across-the-board for everyone who receives a satisfactory evaluation or better.
10. 4.5% across the board, no health care split.
11. Salary Increases: Since last year's increase was only 2%, I believe this year's should be given to everyone who meets the minimum criteria of satisfactory. Additionally, I have only worked in two departments as a permanent employee and feel I have been the same person in each department. I can almost guarantee that my 20 from last year will increase here. Unless all supervisors are provided mandatory training, how can the decision be left up to them alone after the 2.5%?
12. My personal thought is I think we should be given a 4.5% raise for this year, seeing that the cost of living is going up more and more. Example: food, gas, electric, water, Insurance; everything but our salary and wages. Thanks.
13. I think that salary increases should be across the board for everyone that gets satisfactory or above - unsatisfactory should get nothing, not even cost of living. I also think that whatever the increase is for faculty - 3, 4, 5, 6 % that staff should get the same. If that is not possible this year, then we need a guarantee that next year, we will get the same percentage increases that faculty are getting this year AND staff this year should get the highest percentage possible across the board 4.5% hopefully.
The administration needs to know that staff are sick and tired of getting pidley 2% raises then getting even that and more taken from them in raised insurance premiums and parking increases! That, in addition to the broad banding has made it almost impossible for some people to work here. It actually costs us more to work here this year than in all previous years. If we don't do something to bolster staff salaries, we are going to continue to lose really good people who have been loyal employees who just can't afford to work here any longer. That.... is pathetic!
16. I vote for across the board @ 4.5 or higher. Raise to go to everyone. If they are on the payroll they should be doing satisfactory work. If they aren't, they should be gone.I would ask Athletics to pay maintenance on all their buildings of that the increase to students would be lessened. Instead of having Jurich on beat his chest about making money,,,let Athletics pay its own bills. We are an institution of education not an institution of athletics
18. I personally would like to see an across the board 4.5% raise to all employees.
25. SALARY INCREASES:
I believe Option #1 is best. Option #3 might be acceptable IF it could be demonstrated that health insurance cost to the employee would be significant and would approximately equal the same dollar amount as Option #1 would give to the employee (somehow I doubt that it would).
Option #2 I believe is a bad option--not because I believe merit is bad but I know how it gets applied at U of L.
27. Vote: Salary increases should be distributed across-the-board for everyone who receives a satisfactory evaluation or better up 5%.
Comment: I believe the increase should be based on merit. However, I have been told by UofL supervisors that performance reviews are plagued with a system given to bias, subjectivity and inconsistency among evaluators.
29. (1) Staff pay increase 2.5 - 4%
I feel that if increase is less than 5% then all employees receiving satisfactory evaluations should get the same % increase. My experience with merit increase has been unfair and goes to favorites and or used by another division of the department. The cost of living and cost to work at UofL has increased more than 2.5%. Health insurance increased, medical co-pays have increased, parking permits increased, lunches have increased, gasoline has increased 25%, auto maintenance has increased, utilities has increased, groceries have increased, child care has increased; etc etc. The value of my paycheck was much greater in 1995 than it is now. UofL is still below market salary range. In the 1990's the benefits at UofL were great and some the best now I feel it is among the worst.
(2) Humana Choice (self insured) has not been a good decision for UofL staff. UofL is still losing money. Drs will soon no longer accept it. Unknowingly, for surgery, I was assigned an anesthesiologist that was not participating with Humana Choice and that is costing me $1047.00 that I am still making payments.
Find a medical insurance vendor that physicians approve.
32. I would rather have a higher increase in hourly wages, we are pretty underpaid as it is. I like the idea of merit extras too, although I am not sure how that sets with others. Did I answer the questions correctly, or was there something else? thanks.
34. I believe it should be across the board, as I have found that a lot of supervisors are not reviewing their employees equally. This would give those that work hard and are not recognized to get the same as those who loaf and do get recognized.
35. Distributed 4.5% across the board for everyone who receives asatisfactory evaluation or better.
35B. I support the 4.5% across the board option.
36. I prefer 4.5% across the board for salary increases.
38. Our salary increase should be 4.5% across the board for those with satisfactory or above evaluation.
It definitely should NOT be "giving some to Health Insurance Plans". I am a dedicated long time part time employee and I do not receive Health Insurance so that would NOT be FAIR to me or other part time employees!
40. I'd rather get the money in our salaries right away.
43. For salary increases I am in favor of option 1) Distribute 4.5% acrossthe board for everyone who receives a satisfactory evaluation or better.
There seems to be a large difference between units on the way meritincreases are awarded across the University as a whole. Distributing theincrease equally will remove the possibility of any unfair subjectivity
and be considered fair and consistent for everyone.
46. I totally agree with all of these issues. Many do not participate in the health coverage at UofL. I think it would be outrageous to put part of the salary increase toward that. Across the board raises is the most
equitable plan for employees. Yes, there are some who will probably not deserve it, but I'm sure that is a very minute number
47. Salary Increase - Since 1995, the Senate has historically advocated that if the salary increase is less than 5%, it should be distributed across-the-board for everyone who receives a satisfactory evaluation or better.
49. Since our methodology of determining merit is fundamentally flawed, I prefer option 1.
53. On Salary Increases:I would go with option 1 - distribute across-the-board. I actually like option 2 better except it's subject to controversy – especially since we are using PPE's to evaluate people rather than a useful performance appraisal. Typically the 2% merit will be used to catch people up rather than used to truly reward the stars.
I don't know how you would implement option 3 but don't think it would be fair to everyone. I don't like this option.
Option 4 - come up with a better evaluation method. I have provided feedback to Tom S. about my feelings towards the PPE and offered suggestions. I think that maybe each employee should be ranked on a
variety of points (somewhat like the RPI in sports). This would be done BEFORE any talk of what type of increases might be available. Then, when it's time to distribute salary increases, percentages can be applied based on the ranking. We need to somehow remove the biases and politics so that the people that do the best work get the best raise.
54. I would prefer the increase to be across the board or as another option to distribute 3% across the board and the remaining based on merit.
56. 4 to 4.5 % across the board. Considering past increases, I believe everyone needs more money to make up the increase in health insurance and the increase in parking permits. I am now making less money than I was two years ago.
57. A salary increase is a must since the cost of insurance co-pays has sky rocketed and there is not a choice between different companies. A salary increase should be distributed across the board.
59. Staff salary increases should be given across the board. Top level administration should be given a lesser amount (2%) since their salaries are so much higher than others , this money could then be used to
assist in the lower paid employees raises.
Incentive for retirement/or a package offer to persons who could/should retire for staff over 62 makes sense to me. This would free up areas for younger employees to move into or do not fill the positions if they are not necessary.
We should not be in the Insurance business , I do not think this is our mission. Why can't we be in a much larger pool.
61. I would favor a across-the-board raise, but I would also like to see a raise based on longevity as opposed to merit. I feel employees should be rewarded for their years of service.
62. I think it should go across the board to everyone with satisfactory evaluation or better.
63. Option #1, because I work in a department that is usually very fair about everything, but our supervisors were told by the unit that our review scores had to be lower than in the past and "no one is perfect" so no one can get a top score in any category. That's why I'm against anything being based on merit. I'm guessing anyone who "votes" for option #2 doesn't have that same problem, so that doesn't make #2 a very fair option for everyone. Also, option #3 will affect a lot of things, such as retirement donations, social security paid, etc...
65. First choice: #1. Distribute 2.5% as a cost of living raise to everyone who receives a satisfactory evaluation or better and give the other 2% based on merit. Second choice: #3. Distribute 2.5% as a cost of living raise to everyone with a satisfactory evaluation or better and have the University apply the remaining 2% to the University’s contribution of the Health Insurance Plan.
66. numero uno
68. On the Salary issue.....I prefer option 1 or 3, preferably 1. Most of my family's healthcare costs came in the form of copays, so option 1 would help us the most....
73. I would favor a across-the-board raise, but I would also like to see a raise based on longevity as opposed to merit. I feel employees should be rewarded for their years of service.
73B. I think it should go across the board to everyone with satisfactory evaluation or better.
74. Speaking as a senator, I prefer across- the- board raises. As has been reported on the listserv, units conduct evaluations differently; for example, some units do not give superior ratings. Until we have an evaluation system that employees perceive as fair and until that system is used uniformly throughout the University, I believe everyone with a satisfactory performance should get the same amount.
Someday, when we have a good evaluation plan that is administered properly across units, I'd like to see a cost of living increase plus merit.
75. I can't see mixing salary with health insurance.
I think I would vote to give an across the board increase to anyone getting a satisfactory evaluation.
76. I like to see a 4.5% across the board myself.
79. Since there is such a big number of people who make very little in Physical Plant I would rather see the raises be across the board. I thank if we did a study we would find that the higher paid people get the bulk of the merit money.
82. As far as the salary increases go... I go for option 1. Anything below 5% should be distributed across the board!
83. ok. so I misunderstood that was an option ( I thought it was just historical FYI). Still, I'd would choose for option 1 since the health rates are going to go up anyway and we will be screwed whether we get
the added 2.5 % or the university health plan gets it. The rising university health costs are really what need to be addressed.
85. Since the merit raises would be based on evaluations, I feel there should be an across the board raise. Until the University fixes the evaluation process raises should not be based on merit.
86. Across the board raise.
87. I agree with #1. No way to #2. #3 would be ok, but I would prefer #1.
89. I agree with #1 since all of our salaries need to be raised and it really depends on your boss and his mood a lot of times for the evaluations. I have nice ones but I know some in this department are not as generous. I think it should be across the board. Just my opinion
92. As for my input on salary increases - I would prefer to see an equitable distribution if the expected salary increase is less than 5%. My belief is 3 - 4.5% is cost of living, not merit. It should be distributed equitably.
95. Healthcare costs are out of hand, but whatever we can do collectively to save money, including leveraging our group at the expense of some choices, is a good thing. From what I have seen the Humana managed self-insured route has done something to control otherwise upward spiraling cost increases without becoming too much of an imposition on the majority of staff. Those who were slipping through the cracks have been given care and attention from benefits staff to see if their doctors will become eligible to handle claims managed by Humana. I also support the health maintenance program in which we are encouraged to collectively save (our own) money through healthier staff who will not need to spend (our own) money as much. With the consideration that all these claims are paid with our own money, staff are encouraged to be more attentive to the healthcare costs that they incur beyond their co-payments. The communication of this can be improved. Perhaps another reality check is in order, showing how much it would cost us to have choices and not be self insured. We seem to have some staff who have not realized what has been done in their interest to save their money. The money we have been saving has not been realized by the majority of staff because costs still went up, only not as much. HR needs to communicate the options which should show the obvious answers as to which route is more affordable.
As for salary increases, I agree with Senate avocation that any raise <5% be across the board. I am now totally against gutting cost of living increases with any variable merit, which is totally abused by management. What has happened historically, especially in IT, is that some receive the minimum base cost of living raise and then receive nothing for merit while others are given all the merit at their expense. Stories abound of increases being used to adjust some staff up to market or higher while others go without. Even 4.5% is hardly a cost of living adjustment and we all need what is available distributed fairly and without room for corruption. I would also support some sort of equalizing measure in which everyone gets a flat amount (such as the $1350 we had in previous year) or some scale upon which lower paid employees receive more of a percentage than higher paid ones. Healthcare and parking costs are set amounts, rather than percentages, so salary adjustments to (hopefully) keep up with them should be set amounts as well. I also still support the idea of a merit pool separate from cost of living increases, with merit given as one time payments while cost of living adjusts salary levels on an ongoing basis. This of course has been hotly debated in and out of the Senate, but it still seems to me to be a way to build a merit system, which is important, as well as helping staff keep up with the cost of living.
Lastly a question; fringe is calculated as a percentage of salary, and budgeted as such. How is that reflected in benefits costs? Life insurance aside, from what I see there is a set amount for health insurance both in University contributions and various employee payments. How is a higher amount of money for a higher paid employee reflected in benefits? Is there a place in which this factor comes into play, or is it possible to calculate a set amount of money that it costs us to be insured?