Submitted by: Nancy Burns

I'd like to comment on the PfP distribution subcommittee's proposal, the Princeton University Library Pay for Performance Disbursement Design , and to propose an alternative plan. I have two basic concerns about the subcommittee's proposed plan for distribution of merit raises:

(1) The increments for different performance levels are too steep, considering that they may be based on very minor differences in performance. For example, under the proposed plan a worker rated at 3.6 would get only half as much merit money as one rated 3.7.

(2) Distribution of money in lump sum amounts (called "shares" in the document) disproportionately rewards lower-level and recently hired staff, while giving insufficient reward/incentive to higher-level and senior staff. It must be understood that there are significant differences in the salaries within our union--as there are significant differences in the skills and responsibilities required by the positions. The highest PULA salary is currently about 2.5 times the lowest. Using the figures given in the example, a new B-level employee doing excellent work could receive a merit raise of 5.5%, while equally excellent work performed by many longtime F- or G-level employees could earn them 2.5-3% at most.

When this issue was brought up in our division's small-group meeting, the explanation given was that the idea was to reward good work, no matter at what level. But I doubt that the Library's professional staff would see it as fair if dollar amounts awarded for merit raises were identical for every Library employee, from the shelver to the highest levels of administration. I don't believe that a B- or C-level employee, no matter how well s/he performs his/her job, is in a position to make a contribution to the Library of equal value to that of an F- or G-level employee performing his/her job equally well. I think what excellent B- and C-level employees should be given, instead of disproportionate merit awards, are more opportunities for promotion or reclassification to higher pay grades. Such opportunities are less available to higher-level staff.

I'd like to see the following changes in the distribution system:

(1) Rather than have only 3 levels of award, with steep jumps from one to the next, increase the number of increments and decrease the amount of difference between steps.

E.g., instead of:
1X 2X 3X

expand to 4 levels:
1X 1.5X 2X 2.5X

(2) Rather than have the same share amount for all levels of staff, establish a scale of different share amounts for each pay grade, in proportion to either the average salary or the starting salary in each pay grade. I see this as a compromise between the lump sum approach and the percent approach. This plan still offers less, percent-wise, to senior staff than to newer staff; however, it seems likely that senior staff, with all their accumulated knowledge and experience, will be awarded a larger number of higher shares.

I do believe that at least a portion of the raise should be a percent, and that that percent should somewhat keep pace with inflation. At present, PULA has negotiated an across-the-board 1.5% raise (possibly higher, depending on the upcoming salary survey and any resulting re-negotiations). However, whether this half-and-half arrangement will continue beyond next year depends on future contract negotiations--at which time, I think the whole question of whether "pay for performance" works for our membership should also be revisited.