Back to Home Print This Page Email This Page

IT Members Weigh in on Priorities for Next Round of Negotiations

Local 1000 members expressed their concerns about the state’s proposed IT classification system in e-mails and worksite meetings.  Over and over, IT professionals expressed concern making less per year than IT professionals in the private sector and out public sector jurisdictions and the possibility of getting passed over for promotions if a new reclassification system is put in place next year. 

“There’s lots of fear and uncertainty,” said Clay Silva, staff information systems analyst with the DOE. “If the classes are not defined, some people will be left behind and we can’t let that happen.”

The state’s new proposal includes a consolidation of the current IT classes from of 36 to 12, reducing IT analytical and professional classes and IT managerial and supervisor classes by more than half.  The plan also calls for a new exam and selection process. 

The state’s proposed exam for promotions is a three step process with members selecting from one or all of 13 “functional” or skill set areas of testing.  Members are concerned those 13 areas do not address all IT workers.  They say telecommunications has been taken off the table by the state as a functional area pending further study.

“Having statewide testing is fair,” Silva said. “The problem is thousands come and take the test and there are always those who get lucky and get a perfect score.  It makes achieving certain classifications unreachable for others who may be qualified but don’t get that perfect score.”

IT members’ concerns fall into six specific categories and may change as we receive more feedback:

1. COMPENSATION AND COMPETITIVE WAGES

  • Based on May 2007 data compiled by the Local 1000 research department, state IT professionals make, on average, $15,020 less a year than their counterparts in other California IT shops.
  • A better classification and examination system won’t matter if pay isn’t sufficient to recruit and retain qualified IT professionals.
  • State IT wages must be competitive with other public and private sector employers; the Union’s research department is conducting more detailed salary comparisons.

2. RECOGNITION OF INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE

  • The new testing system must acknowledge the value of current employees with significant institutional knowledge and a commitment to state service.
  • Members want to know what will happen with departmental promotional exams.
  • Other possibilities include using career credits for recognition. 

3. PAY EQUITY WITHIN THE NEW CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE

  • Under the state’s proposal, each new classification will have the same minimum-maximum range and no one will experience a pay loss.  However, there are differences in the current range of classes being consolidated, ranging from about $1.00 a month to $103.00 a month. Members believe employees should receive the higher rate with consolidation.

4. RETURN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AS A FUNCTIONAL AREA

  • Earlier proposals included telecommunications as a functional area; it’s now been “taken off the table,” by the state pending further study.
  • Members say telecommunications must be included as a functional area.

5. EXAM SYSTEM MUST TEST FOR ALL IT WORK

  • The state proposes 13 functional areas for testing purposes.  Some specialized IT work, such as QA/Testing, is not addressed.
  • New testing mechanisms need to include all current state IT work.  Failure to test for all IT work could be used as a rationale for outsourcing IT work.

6.  FURTHER REVIEW OF IT CLASSIFICATION SERIES EXCLUDED FROM PROJECT

  •  The state has excluded Telecommunications Analyst/Manager, Program Systems Analyst, EDP Acquisition Specialist, Instructional System Engineer, POST and Programmer Apprentice from the reclassification project. These classifications received 5% equity adjustment, equal to what other IT classifications received in January 2007. 
  • Our goal is to include all IT classifications.

Silva says there is no easy fix to the issues.  But he thinks a legitimate solution includes a better comparison of salary structures between the state and private sector.

“The state could take a hard look at whether IT classes are paid commensurate to the private sector,” he said. “I’m concerned the members won’t support any part of this plan unless the pay structure issues are addressed.”

The state’s current system was adopted in the 1970’s and is no longer a good predictor of job success or a good match of job to employee.  The system makes outsourcing of jobs easier for management.

In 1999, the state began discussing a new IT classification system and in 2004 they introduced a strategic plan.  The plan includes “modernizing the IT Classification Structure and Selection Tools and Methods.”

If the new IT classification plan is adopted, it would go into effect in July 2008.