November 14, 2000

GUILD ARGUES FOR THE RETURN

TO AUTOMATIC "STEP" INCREASES

In the opening round of negotiations the Guild began its assault on merit increases (as opposed to guaranteed "step" raises) for those employees who have not reached the maximum pay in their classifications.

The Guild committee went into Monday’s meeting prepared to exchange proposals with company representatives and launch right into hard bargaining. Company spokesman Stephen J. Macri said Standard & Poor’s proposals were not ready, however.

Guild spokesman Bob Townsend said the union would be withholding its proposals until the company was ready to make a swap, but he told S&P negotiators the merit-pay system introduced in the last round of negotiations isn’t working. When the Guild does hand over its proposals, he said, there will be one to discard the merit system and go back to the "step ups. "The Guild is not opposed to merit increases over and above the contract minimums. In fact, it encourages S&P to pay more than the contract minimums. But it is opposed to the discontinuation of guaranteed step increases.

Townsend said Guild members made it clear they didn’t like the merit system in responses they gave in a pre-negotiation survey.

"(The present merit system) is lousy," responded one member. "We are faced with a very lazy and unaware manager. No matter what level one would perform at in marketing and communications, there is no appreciation. The telephone operators are just glossed over and taken for granted and don’t know where they stand on a performance level. A merit system is out of the question because no one cares about us. We need the steps!"

A newer employee wrote in the survey: "I haven’t seen it in action. I haven’t been appraised, so I have not received any merit increase. I would say it is not fair considering others have had increases based on the ‘automatic step-up’ and I have not."

The questions the survey asked our members were "How well has the merit-increase system worked? Has it been fair?"

"Not at all," one employee responded. "I always felt a merit was better, because it would be based on your work, not just the same as everyone else. But it seems with a merit from S&P, they feel the bare minimum is just fine. I don’t!"

And another: "I am still on step-ups (people on staff when the last contract was ratified were ‘grandfathered’ under the former system) but from what I’ve seen, the merit system should be eliminated. This was a sellout for new hires and new employees It comes down to a percentage divided among the remaining employees after the supervisors and managers get their raises and bonuses."

The merit system that replaced automatic step-ups applies to new hires and people promoted since the last contract was signed. One person, just recently promoted wrote: "It hasn’t applied to me yet, but it will this year, and I don’t think I’m going to like it." The writer went on to explain how much longer it will take to reach the maximum in the classification than it would under the step-up system even if the writer "consistently exceeds expectations."

Several respondents said they had never heard of anyone at S&P getting a merit increase, which led us to wonder if the Publisher had, in fact, complied with its obligation under the contract to award them. We asked for a list of those employees eligible for merit increases and the amount of increases they were granted.

The current contract reads: "New employees hired after January 12, 1998, and newly promoted employees promoted after January 1, 1999, are not entitled to step-ups. . . these employees are entitled to a merit increase of 2%, 3%, or 4% in addition to the general wage increase, based on their performance appraisal. . ."

During the bargaining session, we asked company negotiators if they interpreted that language to mean that anyone who wasn’t at the top of the scale for his or her classification would be entitled to at least a 2% merit increase. Macri, the company’s spokesman, didn’t answer but said he will respond to that query at the next negotiating session, which is set for Thursday.

Macri said the merit system hasn’t been part of the contract long enough to judge if it has worked or not. He said, however, it’s something the company gained in the last round of bargaining and doesn’t intend to give it up.

"We see what we obtained in the last agreement as part of the fabric and fragment of the contract," Macri noted. "We do not wish to go backward with this agreement."

In the opening round of bargaining, the Guild also touched upon difficulties the union is having with policing S&P’s use of casual temporary workers. Townsend challenged company negotiators to come up with language that will satisfy the Guild that it will be able to prevent S&P from abusing the use of casual temps in the future.

In giving the company a preview of some of the Guild proposals that will be introduced, Townsend said there will be some demands that will be aimed at job security. Macri insisted the contract already has good language in the area of job security, but when he noted the recall language as part of that package, Townsend took issue. He said the recall language hasn’t worked as it was intended and again challenged the company to come up with language to satisfy the Guild’s concern in that area.

The union’s proposal obviously will include general wage increases and also will seek the introduction of several types of bonuses and new fringe benefits.

In addition to Townsend, the Guild committee consists of Unit Chairperson Ed Fannon, Brian McGuire of Facilities and Services Management, Marilyn Bissell of Cash Systems, Peter Burke of Ratings Information Services, Leo Larkin of the Analytical Department, John Matis of Data Operations, Dorothy Madison of Subscriber Services – Circulation Fulfillment and Caheim Murray of Mail Services.

# # # # # # #