STICK TO OUR AGREEMENT — PEF’s member mobilizers have begun distributing these stickers to members across the state, to demonstrate the union’s opposition to the state’s attempt to unilaterally institute changes in the way PS&T members record their time and attendance.
Better to focus on getting the job done
Expert: Move toward rigid time-keeping bucks industry trend
By SHERRY HALBROOK
Attempts by the state to impose a more rigid formula for the way its PS&T employees record their work time and attendance is a sore subject these days as PEF files grievance after grievance protesting what it sees as a violation of Contract Article 12.17.
Presumably, these grievances against several state agencies will eventually run their legal course and be resolved on the basis of an objective third party’s interpretation of what the contract language means and how it should be applied to each situation.
But what about the broader issue of good management practice? How fine a point should be made about the exact hours and minutes each employee spends on the job?
Are the precise time periods employees spend at their worksite or even on the job a dependable indicator of whether the employer is getting its money’s worth?
According to at least one industry expert, it’s not only the wrong answer, it’s the wrong question.
The state, he says, should be watching the bottom line of taxpayer satisfaction, not the clock.
Trend toward flexibility
“Attendance is important, but the real issue is if the work is getting done and done well,” according to management consultant Michael Markowich.
“What matters is if your business can compete successfully. And that depends on the total organization. Because it’s the team that wins and the team that loses,” says Markowich, who teaches human-resource management for the Cornell School of Industrial and Labor Relations and at Temple University.
“No employer is insulated from competition. And you can’t have the full employee involvement and responsibility you need, if you nickel and dime them for every minute,” Markowich adds.
Managers and employees, he says, need to focus on “how best to meet the needs of the customer,” or in this case, the taxpayers.
And for many organizations, he says, that means balancing the need to attract and retain high quality employees against the need to curtail operating costs, in part, by offering employees more flexibility and control over their time.
“The trend is toward job sharing, flex time and telecommuting. A rigid accounting of every minute here or there that an employee spends on the job is the ‘old-school way.’ Of course, all of this must take place within the constraints of the law and collective-bargaining agreements.”
Hourly or salary?
Federal law recognizes that some work, such as clerical or assembly-line manufacturing work, is so consistent in its nature that it’s reasonable to pay for it by the hours spent doing it. The law restricts how long such employees can work in a week for their basic pay. It sets a minimum hourly wage and it provides that hourly employees should be paid at a higher rate when they work overtime.
The law also recognizes that other kinds of work are not so easily measured. The work demands of some jobs fluctuate too much to allow for fair compensation on an hourly basis. These employees are usually paid a set salary but allowed to work as many or as few hours as needed to do the job.
The employer knows if it’s getting its money’s worth from the employee by assessing the quantity, the quality and the timeliness of the work that is done.
“These overtime-exempt employees are paid a salary to perform tasks and to do certain jobs. How long it takes them to do the job is irrelevant,” Markowich says.
One size can’t fit all
“PS&T stands for the Professional, Scientific and Technical Unit of state service,” says PEF President Roger Benson. “This unit encompasses more than 2,500 different job titles doing almost every kind of high-level function imaginable — from tax auditors to research scientists, from environmentalists responding to accidental spills of toxic or hazardous materials to parole officers, and from nutritionists to hearing officers.
“These job duties are all so different that it makes no sense to try to create a one-size-fits-all system for measuring their time and attendance,” Benson adds. “But it looks like that is what the state is trying to do.”
The state has always had the ability to discipline any PS&T employee for time and attendance abuse. However, it also allowed a considerable amount of flexibility so that each agency, worksite and supervisor could adapt and apply time and attendance rules and standards to fit the demands of the individual job and situation.
It is the state’s new move away from flexibility to rigidly applying the same standards for all employees that has the union concerned, Benson says.
And that change in direction is a good reason for concern, according to Markowich.
“In my work, I try to teach practices that facilitate communication between employees and managers, rather than the command and control concept,” Markowich says. “I want them both to focus on the environment (that they work and compete in) to learn what they have to do to win.
“The key to winning is the ability to adapt to changes in the environment. Becoming more rigid just makes it more difficult to compete successfully,” Markowich says. “In fact, organizations that fail to respond to environmental changes will not survive. Likewise, employees have to be able to adapt, as well.”