Supervisors as well as other administration and the union are aware that this is something that should be looked into.
A hardship scenario that stems from this is when an employee applies for a position, (in a different class or even just another building) and doesn’t get it.
This leads to friction between whoever was awarded the position, and who didn’t get it.
The duties and responsibilities between the Custodian II and III are nearly transparent to the employees and appear undefinably different (or at least inconsistent) even to supervisors.
Which begs the question, (one brought up many times to the union) why is there is such large pay difference between the two?
It would seem logical to try and dissipate that pay difference if for no other reason than to help foster a more harmonious working relation.
Another suggestion is to award positions solely on the basis of seniority.
Presently they are awarded based on qualifications.
Since everyone has their own take on who is qualified, this is what leaves the door open for later hardships. That door can be an open-and-shut case leaving no other false expectations, if changed to work off seniority.
To all Custodians
Before our negotiation team went to the District back in September 2005. We were given a survey. On the back of the survey was a spot for additional comments/concerns. At least 3 custodians asked to have the job class of the Custodian III increased.
Having the job class increased was brought up at the April 30, 2005 general membership meeting. The union president and some members of the negotiation team agreed that "this is something that should be looked at."
Please have a look at the information below. This is from our contract, Page 17 of the 2002-05 contract. Please note the large gap in the job class in the custodial department.
The president suggested that this be brought up with the custodial department's supervisors. They both insist that reclassification is something for Human Resources. This is the all to typical pass the buck tactic. It seems to me, the union, the department's supervisors, and human resources will all have to work together on this.
My suggestion is persistence. If you would like to see something be done about this then bring the issue up often, with a multitude of different of people. Bring it up at every union meeting, plant the word with the union rep in each building. Make sure as many members as possible write this in on the upcoming pre-negotiations survey sheets.
And please bring this up during you next evaluation. I think the first part is to have the above group work on a revised accurate job description This seems to me to be a prerequisite for accurate and meaningful evaluation. Reworking the job description will also go hand in hand with creating an accurate wage and salary survey, and an new equitable wage and salary structure.
The initial starting steps and class along with job descriptions where probably derived over 20 years ago. The responsibilities have changed, but the pay step/class and job descriptions really haven't.
Job descriptions clarify who is responsible for certain tasks, and help the employee understand the specific responsibilities of the position. Job descriptions are also helpful to applicants, supervisors, and personnel staff at every stage in the employment relationship. Accurate job descriptions are a prerequisite for accurate and meaningful evaluations, wage and salary surveys, and an equitable wage and salary structure.
The number of shared responsibilities has increased between the various custodial positions, yet the pay differences between these positions keeps spreading further apart due to a system of percent based wage increases.
