Staff Senate Compensation Proposal

Below is the compensation proposal submitted to the Budget Task Force by the Staff Senate Compensation Committee.

Staff Senate Compensation Committee

Proposal to the Budget Task Force for Fiscal Year 2008-09

For the 2008-2009 budget year, the Staff Senate Compensation Committee proposes that the salary pool increase be set at 6.0%

• Cost of living. The consumer price index (CPI) for the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton region increased by 3.0% for the period between August 2006 and August 2007. This increase, while not as high as the 4.9% increase last year, is an increase in the cost of living and is the second-highest annual increase since 2001. The regional CPI increase is also higher than the national CPI, which only increased 1.9% from August 2006 to August 2007. We believe that the salary pool increase should be compared to the regional CPI, rather than the national, because the majority of staff members are hired from the region, not a nationwide pool, and because our cost of living is based on the regional CPI. Furthermore, we feel that it is fair to ask for an additional amount above the regional CPI, thus creating an increase in the buying power of our salaries and giving encouragement for remaining with the university.
• Retention and vacancy rates. Staff turnover was high in 2006, at 18.42%, compared to 14% for 2005. To this date in 2007, turnover has been somewhat lower at 13.92% with an estimated annual turnover of 16.2%, which still represents a large number of employees leaving Puget Sound. What we hear, both as Staff Senators and as co-workers, is that people are leaving for better-paying jobs with other employers. We also know of a number of positions that have remained vacant for several months, resulting in departments relying on temporary workers or trying to cover the work of an empty position with their remaining employees. We therefore feel that there is critical need for the "market and internal equity adjustment" piece of the salary pool.
• Staff morale. The Staff Senate Compensation Committee was pleased with the 5.0% increase in the salary pool for 2007-08, which translated into a 4.0% salary increase for most staff. There had been several years during the implementation of the compensation study where the allotment for general salary increases was 3.0% or lower, so it was very welcome to see a larger salary increase when the compensation study was completed. Additionally, since the step-increase system for staff was eliminated, many staff members view the general salary increase as the only reward for longevity at the university. The Compensation Committee would hope to see a general salary increase for 2008-09 which would continue the encouraging trend that started in 2007-08.

Shared sick leave and short-term disability have been two more issues of concern among staff members. UPS provides long-term disability insurance for employees who are at least .75FTE, which pays 60% of the employee's salary after six consecutive months of disability. During the first six months of disability, however, employees who have used up their vacation and sick leave could end up taking unpaid leave. The new shared sick leave policy will help employees in this situation. However, staff members are still interested in short-term disability insurance, which typically provides employees with 60% of their monthly salary for 3 to 6 months. In our committee's survey in the fall of 2006, twenty-three percent of respondents would like to have a shared sick leave program, 12% would like the university to offer short-term disability insurance, and 53% would like both shared sick leave and short-term disability insurance.

We propose that the university offer short-term disability insurance as an item that employees could purchase with their benefits allowance, beginning in the calendar year 2009. We suggest that the employee would pay the entire cost of the insurance (there would be no university contribution to the insurance premiums) but that it would be offered as an option during open enrollment and could be paid for using the benefits allowance. There are two advantages to the employee in this system, compared to employees purchasing short-term disability insurance individually: by purchasing insurance as part of a group, the rates might be somewhat lower, and by using the benefits allowance, the cost of the insurance would come from pre-tax dollars. We recognize that there would be some cost to the university to administer this system but at this time we have not received an estimate from Human Resources as to what that cost would be.

As we discussed in our proposal to the Budget Task Force last year, one of the principal concerns of the staff as revealed by our committee's 2006 survey is the rising cost of health care. Both the poll numbers and the comments submitted by staff indicate great concern about this subject. We understand that the university is limited in its ability to respond to ever increasing health costs. We think that it would benefit staff and the university if a long term, broad range plan were instituted to devise and implement innovative programs that would encourage Staff to exercise, eat healthy, cease smoking and engage in other health enhancing and life extending habits. The Health-e Outlook website and the Weight Watcher's class starting on campus are some great examples that are already in place. Other programs that might be instituted include providing and encouraging the use of additional exercise programs or flexible working hours; offering and encouraging attendance in dietary or smoking cessation classes; and researching and disseminating information of value to staff, such as the YMCA program that allows university employees to waive the membership fee when joining. We believe that staff, faculty and the university administration should join in a partnership to control and alleviate the effects of this ongoing problem.