5
for new positions he desires authorized,
and the continuance or revision of rates
of existing positions, without much re
gard to uniformity throughout the
service or coordination with any gener
al plan, for none exists.
It is well known that in any large
organization the salary paid in indi
vidual sections is very often conditioned
by the attitude o f the superior. In one
unit the person in charge feels that only
the professional people are important
and they, therefore, should be highly
paid to the disadvantage o f the neces
sary and important clerical workers. In
another unit, the reverse may be true.
In still another situation the supervisor
may feel that public funds should be
conserved and that State employees
should be paid as small a salary as pos
sible. In another unit, the supervisor
may feel that the more money one can
pay his employees, the more likely he
is to get the best of the crop. As a
result, envious comparisons arise be
tween the employees o f the respective
units. . . . With the introduction of a
sound classification plan, personal con
siderations do not condition the classi
fication. To the contrary, there is a
uniformity of compensation developed.
The result is that not only is there a
better attitude on the part of the work
ers, but there is much less moving about
of workers not only between units of
the same agency but between agencies,
since the only financial inducement
that can be offered is that which can
appropriately be advanced with the in
crease o f responsibility in the new posi
tion.
Except in those relatively few in
stances where he is able to secure more
comprehensive information, the legis
lator m ust be governed largely by the
undefined titles o f positions used hy
different departments or units in their
individual recommendations. In the ab
sence o f the uniform, official terminol
ogy provided by a position-classifiea-
tion plan, nothing is more unreliable
than to conclude that positions deserve
the same pay scale because they are
called by the same name, or that a
position called by a title that sounds
important is really an important posi
tion. The whole pay-fixihg process is
further confused by pressure for special
pay increases on the part of individuals
or groups. For example, dignified titles
could be used as a smoke screen to leg
islative inquiries. Thus a "building su
perintendent” could under job analysis,
be found to be a "clerk” , a "chief
clerk” a "clerk typist” or a "statisti
cian” a "tabulating machine operator.”
None of the people with those high-
sounding titles doing the work those
titles called for. The titles could be de
vised to get the salary.
The result is that positions involving
the same work are paid at widely vary
ing rates; the pay structure of the
jurisdiction lacks rhyme of reason;
there is both overpayment and under
payment; public funds are wasted; in
justices and discrimination exist and are
continually created; and the effective
ness o f the public service is diminished.
In contrast with such methods, the
use of a position-classification plan as
a base for a pay plan contemplates the
development and formulation of a def
inite salary policy; the expression of this
policy in terms of scales of pay and
operating regulations; the definite as
sociation of scales of pay with the
classes of the position - classification
plan; and the determination of the scale
of pay for each individual position
through the process, controlled by a
central classifying agency, of determ
ining the precise class in which the po
sition falls, on the basis of its duties,
responsibilities, and qualification stand
ards.
In this situation when a department
head wishes a new position, he asks for
it under the specific title of the class
(Continued On Page 20)