The Oregon state employee. (Salem, Oregon.) 1944-195?, January 01, 1946, Page 6, Image 6

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    4
A PAY POLICY
The following discussion is based
upon an article by Carl L. Richey,
formerly a staff member of the Ten­
nessee Valley Authority and now on
the staff of the California State Per­
sonnel Board. The discussion is very
timely and merits serious consideration.
Mr. Richey stresses the well known
fact that the actual amount of com­
pensation paid is generally a major de­
terminant of whether or not a govern­
mental unit attracts high-grade appli­
cants and retains them in the service
after employment. Therefore, it is time
that greater attention be given to rates
of pay prevailing in the sources of re­
cruitment for the public service. It is
time that more consideration be given
to the salaries paid by competitors for
the services of trained employees. It is
time that programs be inaugurated
which translate such facts into action
that removes inequities from public
pay schedules.
He suggests that we "start talking
about the periodic gathering of pay
data so that we will have a knowledge
of concrete facts relating to our com­
petitors for the services of employees.
In advising on civil service laws or
model city charters, let us see to it
that they contain a provision that the
civil service agency shall make wage
and salary surveys hot less often than
once each year. Finally, let us set the
stage so that frequent surveys may be
made in a rapidly moving labor market
and yet at all times assure a reasonable
knowledge of comparative pay rates.”
It was stated some years ago that
"Ju st because others take advantage of
the social or economic helplessness of a
group of workers, or give in to the de­
mands of a well organized body of
workers, the public body working out
a new compensation policy may not
wish to do so.” This is cited because it
illustrates two tendencies which some­
times characterize personnel technicians.
The first is what might be called (for
lack of a better term) a complex in
favor of social beneficence, and the
second a prejudice against collective
bargaining relationships.
With reference to the first, no sug­
gestion is being made that government
"take advantage” of people. Govern­
mental employees have no right to ex­
pect privileges which are not enjoyed
by workers in private enterprise who
are rendering the same kind or level of
services. Instead of seconding pleas for
an ephemeral "living wage” — a term
which lacks definite meaning—would­
n’t it be better to have a few cold,
hard facts?
With reference to the second point,
(Continued on Page 5)
YOU AND YOUR JO B IN 1946
(Continued from Page 3)
ing of additional members. Individually
this task is small, collectively the re­
sults are great.
In 1946 you and your job will be
influenced considerably by and through
the efforts of the Oregon State Em­
ployees Association. It is a critical year.
The time to act is now. You as a mem­
ber have been carrying someone else’s
share of the burden. Get another em­
ployee to share the load.
BUILDING NAME CHANGED
The building in which the headquar­
ters office of the Oregon State Em­
ployees Association is located changed
hands recently and the new owners
changed the name of the building. The
building Is now known as the Pacific
Building.
The address on stationery will be
changed when present supplies, are ex­
hausted.