"Across-the-board". . . a fìacso
This is a re p rin t of. a n a rtic le a p p e a r in g in th e p u b lic a tio n , THE A N
SW ER, p u b lis h e d b y D istrict I of OSEA a n d w ritte n b y th e editor, P e g g y
' P e p p e r, A ss is ta n t D irector.
A bill has been introduced (to the Legislature) request
ing a $25 across-the-board increase for all State employees.
This is NOT sponsored by OSEA, nor is it being supported
by OSEA. The reasons it is not are obvious.
In the first place, w hy $25? Why not $50 or $100?
Are the progenitors of this bill hoping fo r $10 and so are
asking $25? The policy and goal of OSEA is EQUAL PAY
FOR EQUAL WORK. It is the only honest, straight-forward,
intelligent approach to the salaries and wages issue. Until
this goal is reached there w ill never be equality among
State employees, nor w ill the State employee feel that he
is much else but a "left-over" on the labor market.
No "across-the-board" increase . . . no so-called "cost-
of-living" increase w ill solve our basic problem at this
point. The FACT is that in most areas the State employee
is not receiving a salary equal to the employee in industry
and other public agencies doing the same work. Em
ployees must be alert to the issue and refuse to be pla
cated by the hollow hope that next month's pay check
may carry a few more dollars.
The "cost-of-living" increase is one of the flimsiest of
all pacifiers.®- a, very fragile straw to be grasped by the
grossly underpaid. Cost-of-living indexes fluctuate con
stantly. Perhaps at the present time we can arrive at a
figure of 4%. This would have logic only IF State em
ployees had been receiving EQUITABLE, PAY and the 4%
was, in truth, a cost-of-living increase. The cost-of-living
gimmick is a bitter joke to the employee at the low end
of the totem-pole.
Consider the "across-the-board" farce, as farce indeed
it is. Everyone wants more money and if the $25 would
be whittled down to one dollar, he'd take it. But, what
about the employee at the end of the yardstick who isn't
w ithin shooting distance of parity pay? Would he be
tickled pink to receive a $25 increase when his. neighbor
in private industry, doing the same kind of work, brings
home $50 more each month in his pay check? And what
about the classifications that are at the present time within
"spittin' distance" of parity pay? Should these people get
$25 that belongs in all honesty and decency, to the grossly
underpaid classifications? Is this reason — or logic — or
justice?
«
Ute
I
P '- n p
■
a .
.
.n u J in g i
< j|g |
f c
• •
L i • -i
-
I
1
■ F
bn ■
■
Can any State employee be satisfied w ith less than
EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK? Not only w ill we NOT
be satisfied, but Legislators are busy people and it is in
sulting to their positions and a waste of their valuable
time to present for consideration any plan not supported
by factual data based upon intelligent and extensive re
search. I'm certain they would prefer to consider a sound
and permanent program and that is exactly what OSEA has
produced and presented. It is one that can finally put
Oregon up w ith other states, such as California, who pay
prevailing rates to their employees. Every other year our
Legislators are confronted w ith this problem, so why
shouldn't it be resolved now, once and for all? It is sound
economics for the people of the State to provide prevail
ing rates for their employees. The program simply pro
vides from a 1 to a 4-step increase for most State em
ployees. In dollars and cents this amounts to from $12 to
$50 per month.
We cannot help but wonder if anyone is seriously sup
porting the across-the-board fiasco. It is time we became
suspicious of people who offer these highly polished ap
peasement apples. Has this bill been tossed into the hop
per to confuse the issue, or are we State employees being
courted for some reason or other? The latter is rather
flattering since it indicates our numbers are worth con
sidering. But, brother, it isn't going to work! We w ill not
"sell our birthright for a mess of pottage."
If this Legislature does not step forth w ith its support
of a sound and permanent salary plan which w ill help re
cruit and retain employees in dedicated service to the State
of Oregon, then some future Legislature w ill. What we
ask is honest . . . it is just . . . it is right. And for these
principles, OSEA w ill not stop fighting. If we do not w in
this round (and it is our high-hope that we w ill) then we
w ill go on as we have been — w ith State employment not
being used as a career, but as a training ground — a
stepping-stone to provide efficient and qualified help fo r
other public agencies and top-flight employees for private
industry. Should the State of Oregon be engaged in so
broad a training program for private industry? It's some
thing to think about and something to ACT upon now!
CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS IN SUPPORT OF HOUSE
BILL 224 . . . PREVAILING RATES FOR STATE EMPLOYEES.
t
I MF/
1
R M
I
«g
T l
This photo, taken recently at a luncheon meeting of OSEA's Salem Chapter No. 1, shows some of the more than one-hundred members and guests
who attended. While they ate and listened, Jay Blair, (seated at left) OSEA president and Gail Williamson, (inset, right) chapter president, informed them
of current legislative activities of the Association. Noon meetings, such as this, have proven to be excellent for demonstrating to non-members the
benefits derived from group unity.
JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1959
PAGE NINE