ACC Classified Employee Association Comments to the Board of Trustees

March 2, 2009

F10 Comments

• While we are pleased with ACC’s policy to ensure no employee earns less than a minimum of the “living wage”, this causes compression in salaries where entry level employees are paid at the same rate as employees that with more experience and tenure and in many cases, at the same level as their supervisor.
• Compression contradicts Section [9] lines 140 – 142. “An appropriate relationship shall be maintained between the compensation packages of executives and senior administrators and the compensation for other classes of employees.” The second value statement on lines 6 and 7 of Attachment C also contradicts the current compression in salaries. The system is already outside the F10 model.
• Classified employees still differ with the “living wage” definition that defines an efficiency apartment as the standard for housing used in computing the hourly dollar figure. We believe a one bedroom apartment is a more appropriate measure of the cost of housing at the lowest level. Both figures are computed and available from the same source that computes the efficiency apartment cost.
• F10, [2] -
  The current language requires the compensation ratio between classifications be consistent and applied to everyone. "Compensation for non-faculty scales may be adjusted to maintain the percentage difference in ratio's between classifications."
  The new proposal removes this ratio thus allowing compression of salaries.
• Change to F10, [4] -
  The salary system currently in place makes all non-exempt compensation a market based system that removes step progression in each job classification and substitutes a range within the salary group that depends on a complicated and uncertain method of determining the non-exempt employee's ability to progress within the range.
  
  In contrast, faculty compensation follows defined pay levels and allows length of service for progressive steps within that salary range that leads to a yearly increase in pay for longevity and education.
  
  Non-exempt personnel, Classified and Prof/tech, do not receive advancement with longevity or education. We only advance within our pay group if a raise, such as a cost of living raise, is granted to the whole college.
• Section [5]. Lines 102 – 103 remove the cost of living changes as a salary consideration.
• Lines 104 – 105 remove the consideration of the impact of inflation on lower income employees. As employees that are not even paid at the middle of the market salary range, we find this unacceptable when faculty members are still paid on a step increase system that allows progression.
• Change to F10, [6] Lines 106 – 107 - Deletion of this sentence removes the consideration of education in the compensation of non-faculty employees. As Austin Community College is an educational institution. Why is it not appropriate to consider education among non-faculty employees? With compensation for education among faculty, it is equitable to also recognize education in non-faculty employees.

• The Board traditionally reviews employee compensation during the budget cycle each year. Proposed change to F-10 delegates responsibility for compensation determination to the President. Deletion of the original F10, [9] removes the Board from the compensation decision making process.
•  F10, [10] –The new Section 10 allows the whole policy to be disregarded at any time. While the current administration strives to be fair in dealing with employee compensation, this has not always been the case. The majority of the classified employees responded against this change.