q a..- a4 «Ari—A n ,r. mu 4-... ”.1; . A. .4 . 1-K Iv II". ., n , .z‘, :N- 34311;. 253' P. .- «A ~14 .m- 'n‘ .a‘fi.’ . ‘13... ...,_ 'Mll L’b :‘fi ., um). ,..7». .m. u. (no ’ . 1,. 1A :\V.:’£F:u 3' ._v uh f3“ vie}. . 7| ‘V' :‘vr’fu'u n. 1. hr 4.“ .. ”‘5’” 3g: 3*": :§.:':. 1 .j ’ '4”) C' - ‘,.‘V.‘~h £95m . 5‘331'“§52 "1.433.. Jim-EIHQHE‘kiJg jfi‘fitt ‘ V 7 :11? 34:13:”? ‘-." V 2:. figs . h'u" k 'M a 3 g , . , ' 15.12231me ‘ i. .‘ ”9. “A! 1 - N I. A _. .4 . P ‘A. l '1‘ Leggilih; 5 " h - ; ‘A-x‘tg‘ y‘zisugr fi”&§.§étmn \' "‘ ‘wx ~ ‘ {1% 4V 2‘33???“ in“ . 40‘ a. AA.“ .3 3“ #91:. $1M . u I . . . w: M ,3 .1... .- 1; tit/LE. 3.4 v ‘u «— £32? E?” «agi‘éfilw . fi _ 4-" {3,311 “ w . 11%“! «V V's «M 1,5. ~ 1.8125,. . ‘c , u '3‘}, 1., . ; ‘2". .1321” .. M3 ’3‘.“ "1.. . .. 3,5,; . ~ e.» :- 33‘ x L:l 1. ’1' - «Maj-l. . $E~ m‘ ‘r . ‘ 333.,1.:.:.,- 3,. , . , , ‘ v .3. M.“ mg. n .1“ ' :3: \“g‘” . . ‘ :2, M... r: t: L "2. 124.531“ Iraq quana -. n55? 3&5?“ '12-. {1: ' \ 35.15;. . ‘“ mw J a {4:}... J v ’1 t I «(a 33$...“ v 5' 2'13! 1 x. , An)...» ”A: «war-1. 'nzhgsu‘ 1 ‘- ' n: \I..<1".u‘9. ‘Y I" l .4 H ;=. fllf‘sfgalul I ‘- “WW8 IllllllllllllllllllllIIHIH'Illllllllllllllllll 29300895 7155 This is to certify that the thesis entitled JOB EVALUATION METHODS AND COMPARABLE WORTH: A COMPARISON OF STATE POLICIES presented by SHU-HSIANG (SARAH) YEH has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.A. degree in Sociology Major professor Date June 15, 1990 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY Mlchlgan State Unlverslty PLACE IN IRETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE jl _:Jl_-__ . "at? MSU Is An Affirmative ActionlEqual Opportunity Institution czbtmmpma-pd JOB EVALUATION METHODS AND COMPARABLE WORTH: A COMPARISON OF STATE POLICIES BY SHU-HSIANG (SARAH) YEH A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements ‘ for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology 1990 ’I I /%" ’\ 25/ r {I (14 ABSTRACT JOB EVALUATION METHODS AND COMPARABLE WORTH: A COMPARISON OF STATE POLICIES BY SHU-HSIANG (SARAH) YEH The differences in the average wages of jobs held mainly by women and jobs held mainly by men are, to use the words of the sociologist.C.‘Wright.Mills, no longer a "private trouble" but rather a major social issue. The notion of comparable worth is viewed as a means for raising women's average wages. And it is usually implemented by means of a job evaluation system. A pilot study was implemented for the purpose of determining how different evaluation systems are being used to evaluate professional classifications at bachelor's, master's, and post-master's degree levels, and how several classes are ranked by job evaluation points in each of the different systems. The main finding from the study has been that most states reported that they use the same job evaluation factors for all of the job classifications included in this survey. Yet, althought the states use different job evaluation factors to evaluate jobs, the ranking produced are fairly similar. ACKNO'LBDGBMBNTS I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Melissa Barker, for her faithful support, encouragement and patience, my committee members, Dr. Jay Artis, and Dr. Cathy Rakowski, for their helpful guidance. Without them, I could not learn so much in the process of writing this thesis. I am grateful for having these professors as my special teachers who influenced me so much while I was in the States. Thanks, especially to my family and friends for their support and sharing when I needed them. iii TABLE or CONTENTS Page LIST 0’ TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 v LIST OF rIGms O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Vii INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON CONPARASLE NORTH . . . . . . 5 THE INDIVIDUAL APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Human Capital Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 THE STRUCTURAL APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Dual Labor Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 PAST EFFORTS To REDUCE WAGE DIFFERENCES . . . . . . 15 COMPARABLE WORTH VS. JOB EVALUATION . . . . . . . . 17 METHODS OF JOB EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Types of Job Eyaluatign nethggs . . . . . . . . . 19 SURVEY OF JOB EVALUATION SYSTEMS AMONG STATES . . . . . 25 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 cone L08 I on O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 5 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 1 Summary of Studies Accounting for Sex Differences in Earnings on the Basis of Worker Characteristics......68 2 The Equitable Classification Plan: Job Evaluation Factors for Group One...................................70 3 The Questionnaire for the Survey used by the State of Michigan Civil Service Department, 1989.................82 BIBLIOGMPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 9 0 iv T2219 10 11 12 13 14 15 LIST OF TABLES APaqe Male and Female Workers in the Primary and Secondary Labor Market, 1979 . . . . . . . . The Job Evaluation System Used by 15 states . . . Test Job Categories as Evaluated by by the State of Indiana . . . . . Test Job Categories as Evaluated by by the State of Iowa . . . . . . . Test Job Categories as Evaluated by by the State of Louisiana . . . . . Test Job Categories as Evaluated by by the State of Minnesota . . . . . Test Job Categories as Evaluated by by the State of North Dakota . . . Test Job Categories as Evaluated by by the State of Ohio . . . . . . . Test Job Categories as Evaluated by by the State of Tennessee . . . . . Test Job Categories as Evaluated by by the State of Vermont . . . . . . Test Job Categories as Evaluated by by the State of Washington . . . . Rank Order Comparison (skill factor the System used System used System used System used System used System used System used System used System used only) . . . . . Total Points for Each Job Class Comparison across Nine States . . . . . . . . . . . . Rank Order Comparison among Nine States (Equal Pay Act Categories) . . . . . . . . . . Median Order for 14 Test Job Categories (only skill factor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V 13 33 37 42 43 44 47 49 51 54 55 58 59 60 61 16 17 Median Order for 14 Test Job Categories (Equal Pay Act Categories) . . . . . . . . . . The Comparison of the Highest and Lowest Class among Nine States . . . . . . . . . . . . vi 63 64 LIST OF FIGURES Eigere Page 1 Employed Women in Michigan by Occupation, 1980 . . . 6 2 Median Annual Income of Year-round, Full-time Workers in Michigan by Sex and Race, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . 7 vii INTRODUCTION One of the most significant social changes in the last two decades has been the increasing numbers of women working in the labor market in the United States. As more and more women support themselves and their families, and look forward with concern to what they are going to live on in their old age, they sense sex-based wage discrimination as a serious problem. In other words, the differences in the average wages of jobs held mainly by women and jobs held mainly by men are, to use the words of the sociologist C. Wright Mills, no longer a "private trouble" but rather a major social issue. As Mills states, "our personal troubles and public issues overlap and interpenetrate to form the larger structure of social and historical life" (Vander Zanden, 1990:7). Working women's advocates point out that most women still work in low-paying, traditional female occupations. Many studies have been conducted to explain the wage differential between men and women using different perspectives, and.different conclusions have been reached on the sources of these differences. For example, some women's advocates have suggested that one source of the wage differential is that employers currently pay employees working in the female dominated jobs less than they pay employees working in the male dominated jobs with 2 similar requirements for education, skill, responsibility, and working conditions. Although the Equal Pay Act of 1963 contains the idea of "equal pay for equal work", women's advocates argue that in practice, because of occupational segregation, women are still in low-paying jobs. This is why they back a policy of "equal pay for comparable worth" as a means for raising women's average wages. The notion of comparable worth was clearly a significant women's issue in the eighties. As Eleanor Holmes Norton, chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said "for the average woman who works-who is increasingly the average woman-I do believe this is the issue of the 19803"(Norton, 1979:1). Yet, as the 19805 progressed, a number of key questions arose: what does comparable worth mean? How does one measure a job's worth? Who is going to do the assessment? Furthermore, what is the impact of implementing a comparable worth study? These questions have been very complex and difficult because they involve issues on which.there is no consensus. But still, answers to these questions are necessary: comparable worth claims are being raised by workers, and their representatives through legislation, collective bargaining, litigation and other means. Comparable worth is usually implemented by means of a job evaluation system. The term job evaluation refers to "a formal procedure for' hierarchically’ ordering’ a set of jobs or 3 positions with respect to their values or worth, usually for the purpose of setting pay rates"(Treiman, 1979:73) . The purpose of job evaluation is to produce an acceptable and efficient system of wage differentials for a given unit of wage or salary administration (Hildebrand, 1980:89). However, "the content of comparable worth policies differs notably from state to state. Indeed, state variability of similarly labelled policies is one of the least-discussed aspects of the diffusion of innovation literature" (Evans and Nelson, 1989:74). The variability among state methods and policies.is the main focus of this thesis. A pilot study was implemented in the summer of 1989 with support from the State of Michigan Civil Service Department. The major purpose of that study was to see how different evaluation systems are being used to evaluate professional classifications at bachelor's, master's, and post-master's degree levels, and how several classes are ranked by job evaluation points in each of the different systems. This thesis will be divided into four sections. First, the historical background of the comparable worth issue will be discussed. Second, the survey research on job evaluation systems among states will be described. Third, the current 4 method of job evaluation in Michigan will be explained. Fourth, conclusions and recommendations will be offered. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON COMPARABLE NORTH As ‘we ‘move into the 19908, the question of 'whether discrimination in employment should be eliminated is no longer an issue. Many efforts have been implemented through voluntary and involuntary programs, of individuals, private organizations, educational institutions, business and government. The questions facing us now are more complex because we are not dealing with "whether" but with "how" and "when". Since the issue of comparable worth has been primarily seen as a "women's issue", it is imperative to understand women's position in the labor force and the earnings gap between men and women first, before exploring the idea of comparable worth. At this point, it is interesting to look at some statistics portraying the status of women in Michigan, particularly since this is related to the survey which will be described later in this thesis. First, "the number of women in Michigan's labor force is at its highest level ever--1,902,000 women were in the labor force in 1985. Women now comprise 44% of Michigan's labor force" (Sarri, et a1., 1987:32). According to Sarri, et al., "most women (66% in 1985) are in white collar occupations including’ managerial, professional, technical, sales and 6 administrative support positions. However, within this broad category women are concentrated in lower-level professional positions and in administrative support(c1erical positions)“ (Sarri, et a1., 1987:35). (See Figure 1). Figure 1: Employed Women in Michigan by Occupation, 1980.i Fannlng/Forestry/Flehlng 39M“, 1.45% Manager/Profession“ 22.80% 23.03% Techntdanalfielated Precision Products/ 355% Repair 2.45% Salee Administrauv : 14.46% Support 32.37% Source: u.s. Bureau of the Genet». '1900 Ceneue at the W. Detailed Population Oh I m ace: w. W. D.C.. 1903. PCJO-1-D2i. TIDDI 221 and 222. *Originally appearing on page 36 of Sarri, et a1., 1987. The examination of specific occupations reveals a phenomenal degree of occupational segregation among men and women. For example, "in 1980 in Michigan, 96% of all pre- kindergarten and kindergarten teachers were‘women. Ninety-nine percent of all secretaries, stenographers, and typists were women. On the other hand, 97% of all mechanics and repairers were men. Ninety-six percent of engineers were men" (Sarri et a1., 1987:35). However, women have made some gains. In 1970, 99% of all engineers were men, but this declined to 96% men 7 in 1980. This suggests that slow progress is being made. Yet, despite some gains, "women are under-represented in many higher paid professional as well as blue collar occupations. For example, in 1980 4% of dentists, 13% of lawyers, and 8% of higher paid blue collar occupations were women"(Sarri et a1., 1987:36). Most significant to the issue of comparable worth are figures on the earnings gap between men and women in Michigan. As Figure 2 indicates, "White males had the highest median income ($20,494) in 1980 with both Hispanic and Black men at similar levels below them. Women, regardless of race, had significantly lower median income-~falling between $11,163 and $12,251. If we consider female/male income ratios, however, that of White women at .55 is the lowest" (Sarri, et a1., 1987:42). Figure 2: Median Annual Income of Year-round, Full-time Workers in Michigan By Sex and Race: 1980* $251» 3 Male: SEQ- 5153- I l:m-.64' tut-.61 m.,55 tun-.56 Median Income inthousands ‘ ( ) $10? Females 'l:m denotesthe : ratio of female to $5 3' male Income. 80‘ = . . : . = Black Hispanic White Total Scarce: US. Bureau of the Census. '1980 Census ol the Populatlon'. Detainee Poeulauon Characteristics: Michigan. Wasnmgton. 0.0.. 1983. PC 80-1-024. Tables 221 and 222. *Originally appearing on page 42 of Sarri, et a1., 1987. 8 When comparisons are made among occupations, :"large female/male differences remain despite the fact 'equal pay for equal work' has been the law for many years. These differences are apparent for every occupational group. Particularly noteworthy are the differences for sales and service occupations since these are dominant occupations for women. For sales occupations the ratio is .49, the lowest of all, followed by .54 for service occupations" (Sarri, et a1., 1987:44) . From the evidence described above, the characteristics of women workers are not only that they are concentrated in female-dominated jobs, but also that they are in low-paying jobs. Obviously, "salary inequity and comparable worth are still issues of importance for women workers even though some progress has been made"(Sarri, et a1., 1987:44). Why are women concentrated in low-paying jobs? How can we account for the differences between men and women's earnings? To what extent are discriminatory practices to blame? To what extent does the inequity reflect the differences in individual characteristics? And, to what extent does the disparity reflect structural features of the society? Many different perspectives have been offered to address these questions, such as the individual approach and the structural approach. These perspectives analyze the presence of wage differences using very different assumptions and consequently lead to alternative policy recommendations for narrowing the wage gap between women and men. THE INDIVIDUAL APPROACH The basic assumption of this approach is that "inequalities in the labor force reflect differences in the individual workers-differences in ability, training, and the like"(Fox & Hesse-Biber, 1984:70). These differences in the individual workers may result from the way they identify their role in the labor market, the way they are taught or educated to accept certain values, or simply that they choose to do what they think is appropriate for them. From a sociological view, this can be referred to as a socialization process. In this process, women are "socialized to believe that some types of jobs are appropriate and that others are inappropriate for them" (Treiman and Hartmann, 1981:53) . They are also socialized to pursued courses of study they think are appropriate for them and in consequence may not have the education or training that other available jobs need. Women also consider their obligations to the family and this may limit their alternatives. This is not the issue of why men "can do" but why women cannot. It is the issue of how many choices society offers to women. From a societal perspective, the wage gap stems from "the constraints imposed by society (for example, employer discrimination) that serve to limit a woman's ability to choose freely" (Blau & Jusenius, 1976:187). Other perspectives have argued that because of women's 10 "taste" or preference, they end up in a given occupation. This perspective does not explain why only women should have such tastes, "nor is it clear why a large proportion of women should exhibit.the.same set.of tastes-as demonstrated by their occupational distribution" (Blau & Jusenius, 1976:188). W Human-capital theory is derived from a neoclassical view of economics. The term "human. capital" refers to those dimensions that affect one's ability to produce on the job- such things as educational level attained, number of years worked, job training, absenteeism and turnover. This theory states that "because men and women make unequal investments in human capital, they have unequal productive skills: the result is unequal occupational attainments and differences in wages" (Mincer, 1962, quoted in Fox & Hesse-Biber, 1984:73). However, Treiman and Hartmann's (1981) review of human- capital studies indicates that "only two of the seven studies examined-Corcoran and Duncan (1979) and Mincer and Polachek (1974) --explain a fair'percentage of the:gap in wages between men and women"(see Appendix 1). From Corcoran and Duncan's study, the largest single factor accounting for the differences in men's and women's wages was work history. However, as Treiman and Hartmann (1981) pointed out "women's lesser experience does not completely account for the earning differential. Furthermore, they argue that women's lesser job 11 experience needs a fuller explanation than the conventional interpretation that women voluntarily limit their labor-force experience because of family demands. Women's limited job- related experience may reflect discriminatory restriction of occupational opportunities"(Fox & Hesse-Biber, 1984:73). Another problem with a fundamental assumption of human- capital theory is the difficulty in measuring differences in productivity among jobs. Such things as education, training, and work experience are taken as indirect measures: these variables do not easily translate into measures of productivity. Thus "even those who accept the idea that education enhances productivity do not necessarily accept years of school completed as a good indicator of the quality and extent of job-specific skills learned in school"(Treiman and Hartmann, 1981:19). Using the Michigan data: as of 1984 there were clear income effects from education. In all instances males and females with high school and college education fare better than those with less. However, education, as might.be expected, did not overcome sex-linked.differences in income. For example, White women with four years of college fare the poorest when compared with White males, whereas Black women had the highest income ratios when compared with Black males. It must be noted that Black males have far lower average incomes than White males, regardless of education. White women with four years or college earn only 46% that of White males, and that results in their having lower annual incomes than White male high school graduates (Sarri, et a1., 1987:47). In general, human-capital theory fails to explain the wage differences between men and women. The reason is the "earning gap between men and women cannot be explained simply by 12 differences in the characteristics of the workers: such as their educational level and their job experience" and beyond this, the theory does not "provide an adequate account of the underlying mechanism of discrimination because it relies solely on characteristics of individuals to explain the group's inferior economic position" (Fox & Hesse-Biber, 1984:76). In sum, the limitations of individual approaches(such as socialization. and human capital) are that they fail to consider the problem within the wider social context and they are inherently conservative. These views assert that "women's status reflects their preferences. In other words, it assumes the women freely choose to obtain certain jobs, to acquire less education than men, to enter low-paying work, and to be underemployed"(Fox & Hesse-Biber, 1984:78). THE STRUCTURAL APPROACH In contrast to the individual approach, the structural approach focuses on "basic societal institutions-the economy, the legal institution, the family, their policies and practices-that operate to confine women to particular jobs characterized by low-wages, little mobility, and limited prestige" (Fox SIHesse-Biber, 1984:78). This approach focuses on structure instead of individuals and suggests a different strategy for improving women's labor force status. From this perspective, it argues that women's labor force status is 13 determined by the structure of the labor market.not individual preference. One example is the Dual Labor Market perspective. DE§1_LQDQI_M§££§L Piore (1975) argued that labor markets consists of two distinct sectors: "the primary sector consists of professional and.managerial-administrative jobs with relatively high.wages and status, good working condition ... The secondary sector is the mirror image of the first: jobs are characterized by low wages, poor working conditions, little chance for advancement, lack of stability, and highly personalized employer/employee relations ..." (Doeringer and Piore, 1971: Piore, 1975). Generally, the two sectors of the labor market are mutually exclusive: workers rarely move from the secondary to the primary sector. In Piore's view, "the sectors are further divided into tiers. Formal education is an absolute prerequisite for entry into the upper tier, the jobs in the lower tier are primarily white-collar and clerical positions, sales jobs, and positions for skilled workers. In the dual market, women are concentrated in a few occupations, primarily in the lower tier of primary-sector jobs (for example, white- collar clerical jobs)" (Fox & Hesse-Biber, 1984:79). As Fox and Hesse-Biber show, in 1979, 22% of employed women were in the upper tier of the primary sector, and 44% were in the lower tier: 34% are in the secondary sector(see Table 1). 14 Table 1 Male and Female Ibrkere in the Primary and Secondary Labor Markets, 1979.9 Percentage in occupation Males Females Primary sector 62 66 Upper tier 29 22 Professional/technical workers 15 16 Managers and administrators l4 6 Lower tier 33 44 Salespersons 6 7 Clerical workers 6 35 Skilled workers (craftspersons) 2] 2 Secondary sector 38 34 Semiskilled workers 29 I4 Operators (except transport) 12 ll Transport equipment operators 6 0.5 Laborers (farm and nonfarm) I l . 2.5 Service workers 9 20 Total 100 NO Total number (thousands) 56,500 40,446 sounce: US. Department of Labor. Bureau at Labor Statistics. Employment and Unemploy- ment During l979: An Analysis (Washington. D.C.: US. Government Printing Office. I980). Table II. p. A-20. NOTE: The classification oi occupational categories in primary and secondary sections is from Piore, I972. *Originally appearing on page 80 of Fox & Hesse-Siber, 1984. Not only does gender appear to be an important criterion for placement in primary- and secondary-sector jobs, but also, the dual labor market reinforces the differences in earnings between men and women through what is called the "crowding effect" (Edgeworth, 1922; Bergmann, 1971: Stevenson, 1975). As women are concentrated in the lower-tier "primary sector and 15 in secondary sector jobs this creates an over supply of labor in this sector, thus further reducing or restricting their level of earnings. The dual labor market theory has its shortcomings as does human-capital theory. They both describe women's inferior economic position, but taken separately, do not provide a complete explanation of how these patterns emerge. For example, the economic and legal context are two important structural influences affecting women's inferior labor-market position. Although women themselves have to make the effort to gain the resources (education, job training) to compete in the labor market, this is only part of the issue here. Society, particularly the economic and legal institutions has to eliminate those barriers in order for women to have better access to favorable positions in the labor market. PAST EFFORTS TO REDUCE WAGE DIFFERENCES Structural change is often effected through legal means. Before the notion of comparable worth was extensively debated during the 19808, the idea of "equal pay for equal work" was used to remedy pay inequities. This concept refers to the case where, if men and women, or minorities and nonminorities performed identical work, they should be paid equally. The word "equal" in this context was interpreted to require that the jobs compared be nearly identical in work content (defined as equal in terms of skill, effort, responsibility, and 16 working conditions). The difference between "equal pay for equal work" and "equal pay for comparable worth" is embedded in legislative history and court decisions on the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 addresses the issue of equal pay for“men and women doing equal work. It describes "equal work.as that requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility being performed under similar working conditions"(Treiman and Hartmann, 1981:4). Whereas, "Title VII of Civil Rights Act, prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in all employment practices, including hiring, firing, promoting, compensation and other terms, privileges, and conditions of employment" (Title VII, p4). Yet, long after the enactment of both the Equal Pay Act in 1963 and Title VII of Civil Rights in 1964, the sex based wage differentials still exist. Moreover, "the sex segregation of jobs is also persistent: many jobs are stereotyped as 'male' or 'female'(Hartmann, 1985:4). Many studies show that "there is a relationship between the average occupational wage and the extent of female representation in the occupation: the more a job is done by women, the lower its average wage level"(Hartmann, 1985:4). It is the existence of low-paid, predominantly female jobs that causes the issue of comparable worth to arise. Furthermore, as some women's advocates suggest, "raising the issue of comparable worth can 17 point out women's common oppression by drawing attention to wage structure......"(Comparable Worth, 1980:6). COMPARABLE WORTH VS. JOB EVALUATION Even though the concept of comparable worth is still in dispute‘, it can be best understood and discussed in the context of salary-setting policy and practice. What is the relationship between comparable worth and job evaluation? First, let us look at a definition of comparable worth. Remick ( 1981) defines comparable worth as "the application of a single, bias-free point factor job evaluation system within a given establishment, across job families, both to rank-order jobs and to set salaries"(Remick, 1984:99). Before the comparable worth issue arose, job evaluation was first adopted in the 19303 and 19405"(Hartmann, 1985:5). It is widely used in both the public and private sectors and it consists of a "formal set of procedures for hierarchically ordering jobs on the basis of their relative skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions for the purpose of establishing relative pay rates" (Hartmann, 1985:5) . In general, comparable worth has usually been implemented by a means of job evaluation systems. But there may be some key differences, as Remick stated "job 1The current debate over the interpretation of these two laws (Emal Pay Act and Civil Right Act) is the precise interpretation of the Bennett Alnenthent. Some interpretations state that the "job being conpared to establish claims of pay discrimination against Hanan llllSt asst an Equal Pay Act test of similarity. An alternative interpretation had been that the Bemett Amendnent was meant to incorporate only the defenses available to an enployer that are erunerated in the Equal Pay Act: that is, if an esployer can show that pay differences stem from seniority, merit, differences in productivity, or differences in any other factor other than sex, then those differences in pay, are not illegal"(Treiman and Hartmann, 19815). 18 evaluation is used to justify existing salary practice or simplify salary setting. Comparable worth is used to remedy sex discrimination"(Remick, 1984:99). METHODS OF JOB EVALUATION Advocates of comparable worth appear to agree that all present job evaluation systems reflect cultural values and, presumably, bias. The National Academy of Sciences' review of job evaluation categorically states that "job evaluation inherently rests on subjective judgment"(Treiman, 1979:39). As the National Research Council concluded "there is no strictly scientific or technical basis for determining the relative worth of jobs, because 'worth' is ultimately a matter of values"(Hartmann, 1985:26). But they seem to believe that although values cannot be removed, biases can be. Thus, at one point Helen Remick asserts that "the search for a bias free system does not imply the search for a value free one" (Remick, 1983:167). Job evaluation is a way of expressing somebody's values. The nature of job evaluation is subjective, and job ratings will very likely seem arbitrary to anyone who does not share the evaluators' values. There are several formal and informal job evaluation systems at present. Although they differ in details of design and implementation, almost all share a similar methodology. These are described below. 19 W The procedure of job evaluation involves three steps: job description, job ranking, and wage-setting. As described by Treiman: The first step typically involves a careful description of each job within the unit being evaluated (the entire fimm, a particular plant...). The second step, each job is evaluated with respect to its "worth" to the organization, and all the jobs are hierarchically ranked. The third step, utilizes the results of the job evaluation in the setting of wages or salary rates. In some instances, the evaluation score is automatically translated into a wage or salary level (1979:73-74). In the process of job description, some issues have to be considered. For example, who can participate in the processes of data collection and analysis? What kind of job information should be included in job description? In general, as Schwab pointed out, "the quality of job evaluation is highly dependent on the quality of the description of the job that is provided" (1980:59). The most difficult part of job evaluation is the second step, job ranking. There are two issues involved in this step, the selection. of’ compensable factors and factor ‘weight. Treiman argues that "the choice of factors included in job evaluation schemes and the relative weight accorded these factors can have very substantial consequences for the ordering of jobs with respect to their relative worth and hence relative pay" (Treiman, 1984:88). Many studies have questioned "whether or not the results of comparable worth studies should be rejected because the 20 measurement instruments which they rely on are either inappropriate or inadequate"(Barker, 1986:12). For comparable worth advocates, currently, the most important concern is whether the job evaluation method is a "bias-free" method. The job evaluation system used in Michigan is a point factor method. There are ten factors in the job evaluation system. These are: knowledge and skill, judgement, responsibility for financial and material resources, responsibility for the well- being of others, responsibility for information, responsibility for communications and public relations, physical effort, mental visual effort, work environment, and work hazards. For each factor, there are several degrees or levels, and each degree corresponds with certain points (see appendix 2). Traditional job evaluation methods, include simple ranking, classification, factor comparison, and point factor. Ranking This is probably the oldest, fastest, and easiest of the qualitative methods. Because it is fast, and inexpensive, it is therefore chosen by small firms. Evaluators rank jobs by overall worth or value to the organization. All the jobs are simple ranked from top to bottom with respect to their "worth" or "value". "After the ranking is completed, the ranked jobs are often aggregated into categories for the purpose of assigning compensation levels" (Treiman, 1979:74). 21 Classification This system 'was originally developed by the federal government to establish its pay program (General Schedule, or G8). It operates by "specifying a number of grades for which broad.descriptions are written.for‘various types of jobs. Jobs are compared with the grade description and placed within the appropriate grade"(Remick, 1984:68-69). This process is described in detail: Classification requires a predetermined idealized hierarchical structure, with categories delineated on the basis of such factors as the degree of skill and responsibility thought to be required by various jobs. Each job is fit into the structure by comparing its characteristics with the idealized levels describing each category in the classification. The General Schedule classification of the U.S. Civil Service Commission is probably the best known classification system. Eighteen grades are defined on the basis of eight factors: and as each new job is established it is assigned a GS level that determines the pay range that may be offered. One difficulty with systems of this kind is that jobs with discrepant levels on two or more criteria (e.g., job involving very high educational qualifications, but not exercising any supervisory responsibility) may not fit into the scheme very well and hence require arbitrary judgments for assignment (International Labor Office, 1960:23). Factor Comparison This approach involves a series of specific and somewhat complex steps. First, a set of factors on which the evaluation will be based is chosen (these are known as "compensable factors"). Compensable factors are "the specific 22 characteristics of the jobs which forms the basis for the evaluation and which ultimately determine the order in which the job categories are ranked at the conclusion of the evaluation process" (Barker, 1986:13). The choice of compensable factors is important in two ways. One is that it could alter the pay relationship between jobs. The other is that it could change the relative advantage or disadvantage of particular ethnic or sex groups. For example, as Remick found, some job evaluation systems tend to assign points to characteristics found primarily in ‘male dominated jobs" (Remick, 1978:85). Furthermore, it is considered desirable to keep the number of factors low, four to seven as an.acceptable range (Livy, 1975:91). Next, a set of benchmark jobs is chosen. These jobs are selected as representatives of all the jobs in the organization and are used to establish the basic levels of the system. Then, the benchmark jobs are ranked with respect to their total worth. Finally, a judgment is made for each job regarding the contribution of each of the factors to the total worth of the job; often the criterion of total worth is, in fact, current wages" (Treiman, 1979:75). This last step involves a very important question: here the "principle criterion for the validity of a job evaluation plan is how closely the job worth hierarchy produced by the plan matches the existing wage hierarchy" (Fitzpatrick, 1949; Fox,1962). In other words, how acceptable the job evaluation 23 system will be is often seen in terms of how closely it replicates the existing wage system. The Point Factor System Here, a set of compensable factors is chosen. Next, points are assigned to "degrees" of each factor to indicate the extent to which a job possesses the factor. Then, total points for each job are computed in order to assign salary levels. The most commonly used compensable factors are skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. These are the categories given in the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The U.S. Department of Labor gives the definitions of skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions as the following: SKILL- has been defined as the education, experience, Eggining and ability required to perform the work of the EFFORT- has usually been defined as the mental and physical exertion needed for performance for the job. RESPONSIBILITY- is the extent to which an employer depends on the employee to perform the job as expected, with emphasis on the importance of job obligation. WORKING CONDITIONS- is frequently defined as the environmental factors, climate, or hazards present in performing the job. These statements serve as a formal definitions but as we will see later, there is a great deal of variation in the 2In practice, the job evaluation system usually involve using a skill factor, and mder the skill factor, several stbfactors to evaluate job's worth. For example, in my survey, most of the states use skill as one of the factors to evaluate jobs, and under the skill factor, there are some stbfactors, such as: education, experience, and personal contact. Ednational attaiment is a very iuportent factor in the process of job evaluation and "it is one of the main lumen-capital effects"($arri, et al., 1987:“). 24 operational definitions adopted among the states. The actual definition used by the states is compared in the following section. Job evaluation systems are more complex in practice than they were ideally described above. The differences center around political as well as technical issues. Many questions need to be answered. As Remick states, "how can job evaluation sort out real differences in work from cultural stereotypes of what is appropriate for the sex doing the work?" Additionally, there is a need to know which compensable factors should be used in job evaluation, who makes the choices and if there are any difference among the public sector agencies using job evaluation systems. These questions form the background to the survey of job evaluation systems conducted in this study. SURVEY OF JOB EVALUATION SYSTEMS AMONG STATES BACKGROUND In 1985, a Task Force was formed to study job evaluation in Michigan. At the same time, the State Civil Service Department was given the responsibility to revise the job evaluation and classification system. The purpose of revising the Civil Service's job evaluation system was to reduce the number of separate systems that were used in the state employment sector of Michigan. The number of separate job evaluation systems was to be reduced from eleven to five or less. Additionally, the new job evaluation and classification system was to be designed such that within each group, the employees should be neither predominantly male or female. To develop the new job evaluation system, the employees of the State of Michigan were grouped into five categories. A separate set of rating scales, or compensable factors is being developed for each group. At this time the exact assignment of employees into Groups 3,4, and 5 is still being further developed. However, the preliminary description of the job groups is provided below: \ Group 1: all classes requiring less than B.A. degree, classes are non-supervising. There are about 500 classes, or 40,000 employees in this group. Group 2: all classes requiring B.A. or higher degree. These classes are non-supervising. There are about 217 25 26 classes, or 13,000 employees in this group. Group 3: all supervisors, managers, administrators, (classes not represent by labor unions) Group 4: Executives Group 5: Not defined yet, residual category. On April 1, 1990, the State of Michigan began implementation of the job evaluation for Group 1. The process involved: first, a random sampling procedure to attain job analysis information from employees in every class. For some large classes that were used to test the system, a verification procedure was used to validate the job information gathered from the first sample. Second, a labor- management advisory committee developed the job evaluation factors (Appendix 2). The job evaluation system included ten factors for Group 1 (it is a "point factor" system). Third, the factors were tested for reliability and to determine whether or not the scales would have a similar effect on male- dominated and female-dominated jobs. The preliminary analysis suggests that the factors and the application of the factors have been found to be gender-neutral. Fourth, the results of the job evaluation have been made available to the labor union and the State employers for use in negotiating wages. Fifth, the Civil Service will submit their bargained agreement to [the Civil Service Commission for adoption. The Civil Service has also begun working on developing a job evaluation system for Group 2 jobs. The process is almost 27 identical with Group 1. That is, the process includes collecting job analysis information, and convening an advisory committee to develop factors for Group 2. In order to develop these factors, the Michigan Civil Service Department conducted a survey of several other jurisdictions which were reported to be developing or using a point factor job evaluation system in a study conducted by International Personnel Management in 1985. Of particular interest to the Civil Service Department at this time is how systems used by other states are being used to evaluate professional classifications at bachelor's, master's, and post-master's degree levels(the Group 2 jobs), and. how several "test" classes ‘would. be ranked. by the evaluation systems used in these other states. This comparison of different state systems for evaluating Group 2 jobs is the central focus of the survey conducted for this thesis. METHODOLOGY The research process can be divided into three stages: developing the questionnaire: collecting the data: and, analyzing the data. Each step is described in greater detail, below. WW3 Based on preliminary research conducted during the summer of 1985 and a review of the Pay Equity Task Force report in published in July, 1985 by the International Personnel 28 Management Association, the State Civil Service's classification division identified nineteen states and one province of Canada which we believed were developing or had already implemented a point-factor job evaluation system. A telephone survey questionnaire was then developed by the classification Development Team to gather information from each of these states. Each jurisdiction was requested to send any additional information they had which would help us understand their system. In particular, the classification team requested a copy of the factors, elements, definitions and weights used by states. By reviewing the results of the telephone survey, sixteen states and one province were identified as the target group for a second, written survey. Those jurisdictions were Alaska, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, N.Dakota, New York, Ohio, Ontario, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, W.Virginia, and Wisconsin. We then selected several job classes belonging to Group 2 as "test jobs" to be included in this study. These were: Business and Administrative service: Accountant VIB Data System Analyst VIB Personnel Management Analyst VIB Engineering and Scientific: Transportation Engineer VIB 29 Laboratory Scientist VIB Research Biologist VIB Clinical Health Scientist VII Human Services: Psychologist VIB Clinical Social Worker VIB Social Service Specialist VIB Registered Nurse I Librarian VIB Legal Service: Attorney III Physician and Psychiatrist Service: Psychiatrist II These classes were selected for two main reasons: they were considered "benchmark" jobs, or jobs with an acknowledged relationship to other job categories in the group: and, these "test jobs" were thought to be commonly found in most state employment systems.3 The process of designing the questionnaire was took place several exchanges between my Project Director Carol Mowitz and myself. The content of our discussions included: what kind of 3It should be noted when reviewing Tables 3 to 11, that each state may use a slightly different name or title for the job described in the survey. For example, the title "Staff Attorney" is sometimes called "Attorney 2". The survey respondents were asked to use the job category/title from their state that most directly reflected the job content provided for test jobs in the survey. 30 format we wanted to use, how many questions we would like to ask, how to design the charts used to rank the jobs. At the end of our discussion we decided to use the open ended questions because we wanted to examine the variability among state methods and.policies. We also wanted to leave more space for each state to provide us any further information they had in addition to the questions included in this survey. Moreover, a sample of *** state was provided to show people how to fill out the chart. (For details see Appendix 3). 921W First, we needed to decide what department or person would be most appropriate to respond our survey. The Civil Service Department has an updated mailing list used for contacting individuals about compensation issues. By using this mailing list, we sent out the questionnaire. For example, on the mailing list, there are individuals who work for the Department of Personnel .Administration, or Class & Compensation Division in other states. We asked those jurisdictions which were in our sample to return the questionnaire Iby‘ September 1, 1989. We received fifteen responses, some of which provided us very useful information. However, some of the states could not provide us with the information we sought because they were not using a point factor system to evaluate the selected test jobs. 31 Ana n the t The main interest was to look at skill factor and to determine how different job evaluation systems define and measure skill for professional job classifications, those which require levels of education ranging from bachelor's to doctorate degrees. The secondary interest was to look at the over all ranking of the test jobs by each of the states' job evaluation methods. The data were analyzed in several different stages. First, a qualitative assessment was made of each set of survey responses, including the supporting documents that were sent in by the respondents. This made it possible to verify if the state was in fact using a point factor system which could be used for further comparison to the system under development by the State Civil Service Department. Then the ratings of the test job categories were compared for similarities across the states. A median ranking order was then calculated for each of the test jobs and the highest and lowest ranking jobs were identified. These results are provided in the next section of this thesis. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS The findings can be divided into two sets of states (see complete listing in Table 2). First, there are several states which are not relevant at this time because they do not use 32 a single point factor system. They are described in greater detail below: ALASKA The State of Alaska does not utilizes the single point factor system. They could not provide us any information we needed for comparing our system. a i rn The State of California has and continues to use the position classification job evaluation system. They have not used nor are they developing a point factor system, So they could not provide us any of the information we needed at this point. MEDEQDQ The State of Montana did develop a point factor system in 1985, but they have not used it yet. At this point, they do not use a point factor system to evaluate and classify those jobs in our survey. They indicated however that they intend to use the same job evaluation factors for all of the jobs included in this survey. W The State of New York does not use a point factor system. The allocation system that resulted from the work of their pay 33 Table 2 The Job Evaluation System used by 15 states STATE EVAEQAIIQN,SYSTEM Alaska Alaska Quantitative Evaluation System (A.Q.E.S.) California Position Classification *Indiana Oliver System *Iowa Single Point Factor System *Louisiana Single Point Factor System *Minnesota Hay System, a single point factor system. Montana Developed a single point factor system, but has not used it, yet. *N. Dakota Single Point Factor System New York Quantitative Job Evaluation System *Ohio Single Point Factor System *Tennessee Single Point Factor System *Vermont Willis Single Point Factor System W.Virginia Single Point Factor System Wisconsin Whole Job System *Washington Single Point Factor System *These states are using a single point factor system which can be used for further comparison to the system under development by the Michigan Civil Service Department. 34 equity project (started in November, 1985) resulted in what is called the Quantitative Job Evaluation System (QJES). At this point, the State of New York could not provide us the information we needed to compare jobs or job ratings to the Michigan System. H' s' The state reported that a majority of the classification specifications for the survey classes are over 15 years old. The training and experience requirements that are described in great detail in many of the older classification specifications no longer apply. Since 1978, Training and Experience requirements are only valid for those classes which require a license or certification to perform/practice the work. Qualifications for other vacant Civil Service positions are determined and announced at the time of recruitment. Professional classifications no longer identify bachelor's, master's, and/or post-master's degree levels as the basis for entry and/or progression through their respective series. While the vast majority of the classes in the current Wisconsin Classification Plan were developed using the Whole Job Classification method, many others were developed from occupational surveys which.were conducted using various other quantitative job evaluation methods. 35 W. V' The State of W. Virginia used a point factor system to evaluate about 1,900 job classes for a pay equity study that was not implemented. As they evaluated professional level classes they became increasingly aware of a restriction in the range of factor levels available to reflect differences they perceived in fermal education at bachelor's, master's, and post-master's degree levels. They intend to begin using their point factor system in the near future and would like to resolve the range compression problem if possible. The following states, which are using single point factor systems, are relevant to us at this time. These form the data set used for further comparisons in this study. Background information about each of these states and their job evaluation systems is provided below. Indiana The State of Indiana has used the same job evaluation system, the Oliver system, for many years. The Oliver system is a methodology for evaluating jobs, grouping them, ranking them into a structure and developing a system of pay rates for each group of jobs that is equitable and based on the market for similar jobs. The State of Indiana uses the same job evaluation factors for all of the job classifications included 36 in the survey. They are four factors in their system: 1) job requirements: 2) difficulty of work: 3) responsibility: 4) personal work relationships. The job requirement factor'measures the nature and extent, and the level of knowledge and abilities needed to perform work acceptably. The difficulty of work factor measures the complexity or intricacy of work and the mental demands, i.e., judgment, originality, and other mental effort required, as affected. by' the quality and. relevance of“ the available guidelines. The responsibility factor'measures the assistance and control provided by the mission of the organization. The personal work relationships factor measures the skill required in work relationships with others and the importance of such relationships to the success of the‘work. The point totals for each of the 14 test job categories, as ranked by the Indiana system appear in Table 3. IONA The State of Iowa has used the same job evaluation system, a point factor system since 1984. Iowa uses the same job evaluation factors for all of the job classifications included in this survey. The respondent stated on the survey that: "as is true for most point-factor job evaluation systems, our system is time consuming and subjective. Reliability can also be a problem since opinions vary from person to person and over time". 37 Table 3 Test job categories as evaluated by the system used by the state of Indiana. QLA§§E§_ QQB_BEQQIBEMENI§£ ** t 1. Accountant B4 100 2. Attorney C4 120 3. Clinical Health Scientist No match 4. Social Worker III B4 100 5. System Analyst III B4 100 6. Chemist II B4 100 7. Librarian III B4 100 8. Personnel Officer III B3 80 9. Psychiatrist III C6 160 10.Psychologist EVII C5 140 11.Nurse IV B3 80 12.Research Biologist B4 100 13.Social Service Specialist No match 14.Highway Engineer III B4 100 *The Job Requirements factor is one of the four factors use in Indiana. **Degree refers to c combination of "nature and extent of‘ knowledge" and "level of knowledge and abilities required". For example, there are three levels, A,B,C in the "nature and extent of knowledge". There are six levels, 1 to 6 in the "level of knowledge and ability required". For each combination, points are assigned. 38 There are four factors which are based on the Equal Pay Act Categories: SKILL, EFFORT, RESPONSIBILITY, AND WORKING CONDITIONS. Additionally, these are mandated by the state code: "The compensation for state jobs will be determined by the skill, responsibility, effort, and working conditions necessary to do each(chapter 79.18, code of Iowa). According to the survey’ respondent, "The comparable ‘worth study conducted by Arthur Young and Company took those four areas and further subdivided them into thirteen factors." Within each of the thirteen factors there are several different degrees or levels that are used to evaluate the job class. Each of the levels within the factor have a given point value. The points of the thirteen factors are added together to determine the total point score for the class. The total points then determines in which pay grade the classes should be. This first category "skill" has three subfactors which are education, experience, and personal contacts. The second category "effort" has five subfactors which are job complexity, guideline/supervision, physical demands, mental/visual demands, and work pace/pressure. The third category "responsibility" has three subfactors which are supervision exercised, scope & effect, and impact of error. The fourth category "working conditions" has two subfactors which are working environment and hazards/risks. The education factor measures the academic preparation 39 and/or technical training at the entry level considered to be the normal or typical prerequisite to learning and performing the job at the entry level. This preparation or training refers to that which provides a basis or foundation for the development of adequate job skills and overall job competence. The factor refers to the attainment of knowledge and skills typically obtained through formal educational institutions, rather than through on-the-job experience. The experience factor evaluates the least amount of time normally required for a person with the specified formal training/educational knowledge of background to acquire the related knowledge and skills to perform the job satisfactorily under normal supervision. Qualifying experience may have been acquired on prior related work or lower-level jobs, either within state government, other former employment, volunteer work, on-the-job training, or any other relevant source. The personal contacts factor measures the responsibility for effective handling of any personal contacts or interactions 'with. persons ‘not. in ‘the supervisory' chain. Consideration is given to the frequency, nature or type, importance, the setting in.which the contact takes place, and such.matters as cooperation, tact, or'persuasiveness required to properly fulfill the objectives of the contacts. These contacts may be in person or over the telephone/radio. The type of the contact selected must be the same as the contacts which serve as the basis for the level of purpose 40 selected(respondent from.the State of Iowa). Findings for the fourteen test job categories appear in Table 4. Leeisiena The State of Louisiana uses the same job evaluation factors for all of the job classifications included in this survey. The job evaluation system which is a single point factor system had nine factors which are education, experience, organizational control, persons contacted, purpose of contacts, complexity, job responsibility, physical demands, and unavoidable hazards. The first category "skill" has three subfactors which are education, experience, and personal contacts. The education factor measures the minimum educational level required by the job. The minimum educational level is defined as that level of education or formal classroom training that an individual must possess prior to entry into a job in order to become proficient at the job duties within a reasonable time period. The experience factor is intended to give credit for job related experience which is required in order to become proficient in performing job duties within a reasonable time period. It is used in conjunction with the education factor. The personal contacts factor includes face to face contacts and telephone and radio dialogue with persons not in the supervisory chain. Contacts credited under this factor are only those which are essential to successful performance of 41 job duties. This is further divided into two dimensions which are intended to separately measure who is contacted and the purpose of the contact (respondent from State of Louisiana). Findings for the fourteen test job categories appear in Table 5. Himsseta The State of Minnesota has used the same job evaluation system, the Hay system, since 1984. "This system involves comparing jobs with respect to three factors common to all jobs: know how, problem solving, and accountability. Each of these factors is further'divided intorsubfactors. For'example, there is substantive know-how, managerial know-how, and human relations know-how" (Treiman, 1979). Minnesota uses the same job evaluation factors for all of the job classifications included in this survey. Findings for the fourteen test job categories appear in Table 6. W The State of North Dakota has used a point factor system for job evaluation for many years. In their point factor system there are four factors: knowledge and skills, complexity, accountability, and special working conditions. The first category "knowledge and skills" has‘ three subfactors which are technical know, management breadth, and interpersonal skills. The second category "complexity" has two 42 Table 4 'Test job categories as evaluated by the system.ueed by the state of Iowa. gLA§§E§ SKILL*** Educatign** Exnsrisnss Perssnel_92ntest§ Total DQL: 2918:: PSI PQiDIS 291 PQIBIS 1. Accountant II. 6 77 4 36 2c 36 149 2. Attorney 2 8 150 4 36 4d 78 264 3. Clinical Health Scientist N. C. C. 4. Social Worker 3 6 77 4 36 3d 60 173 5. programmer 6 77 3 22 3b 60 135 6. Chemist 2 6 77 4 36 3C 47 160 7. Librarian 2 7 129 3 22 2d 47 ' 198 8. Personnel Mang. Specialist 2 6 77 4 36 3d 60 173 9. Psychiatrist Not rated 10.Psychologist 2 7 129 4 36 4d 78 243 11.Nurse 6 77 2 13 3d 60 150 12.Wildlife Biologist 2 e 77 4 36 3d 60 173 13.Social Worker 2 6 77 2 13 3d 60 150 14.Tran. Engineer 1 6 77 5 60 3c 47 184 *Degree or level on the subfactor scale. **Education, Experience, and Personal contacts are treated as separate subfactors of "Skill".The total is the combined point value of the three subfactors, equally weighted. ***The skill factor is one of the four factors used in Iowa. 43 Table 5 Test job categories as evaluated by the system used by the state of Louisiana. CLASSES SKILL*** Educatienrzunxnerienssa;Eersen_92ntaetsiletal Dsr*nsinte Der points Der paints 1. Accountant 2 5 255 3 206 3 52 513 2. Staff Attorney 7 378 3 206 5 101 685 3. Clinical Health Scientist No match 4. N.H. Clinical Social Worker 6 316 3 206 4 77 599 5.Programmer Analyst 1 5 255 3 206 3 52 513 6.Laboratory Scientist 2 5 255 2 108 2 28 391 7.Librarian 2 6 316 2 108 3 52 476 8 . Human Resource Program Manager 1 5 255 4 304 4 77 636 9.Psychiatrist 1 9 500 3 206 4 77 783 10.Psychologist 2 8 439 3 206 3 52 697 11.Registered Nurse 2 5 255 1 10 3 52 317 12.Research Biologist No match 13.Social Service Specialist 2 5 255 4 304 4 77 636 14.Engineer 5 255 4 304 4 77 636 *Degree or level on the subfactor scale. MEducation, Experience, and Personal Contacts are treated as separate subfactors of "skill". ***The skill factor is one of the four factors used in Louisiana. 44 Table 6 Test job categories as evaluated by the system used by the state of Minnesota. QLA§§E§ KNOW HOW* Qegree** goings 1. Accounting Officer Intermediate D12 175 2. Attorney 2 F12 264 3. Clinical Health Scientist No match 4. Social Worker Senior E12 175 5. Systems Analyst E12 200 6. Bacteriologist 2 E11 175 7. Library/Info.resource Spec. Senior E12 200 8. Personnel Officer Senior D12 175 9. Staff Physician F12 304 10.Psychologist 2 E12 230 11.Registered Nurse D12 152 12.N.R.Specialist, SR. E12 200 (Fisheries research) 13.Socia1 Service Specialist No match 14.Engineer Senior E12 230 *"Know-how" is one of three compensable factors identified by the Hay system. The others are "Problem Solving" and "Accountability". ** The Hay system uses a combined set of rating levels(degrees) to determine the number of points. For example, using the Attorney 2 category, "F" is the sixth level of the subfactor "substantive know how": "1" is the first level of the subfactor "managerial know how": and "2" is the second level of the subfactor "human relations know how". These are combined to create "F12" which corresponds to 264 points. 45 subfactors which are guidelines and mental challenge. The third category "accountability" has three subfactors which are independence of action, effect of decisions, and control of’ budget. The fourth. category' "working' conditions" has limited use at present. Of specific interest in this study are the three subfactors of "Knowledge and Skills". These are further defined as: Technical know: this is a measure of the specialized knowledge and skills required in a class which are gained through education, training, and experience or any combination thereof. Management breadth: managerial breadth is a measure of the breadth of management required of a class. It is concerned solely with the management process. Managerial breadth requires knowledge and skills regarding such concepts as organization, direction, coordination, and evaluation of people. It is not concerned with technical knowledge and skills except as required for managerial integration. Interpersonal skills: this is a measure of the degree of person-to-person interaction required of the class. Findings for the fourteen test job categories used in North Dakota appear in Table 7. 9.819 The State of Ohio has used the same job evaluation system since 1986. They are satisfied with their job evaluation system but noted the job evaluation system was just reviewed for some minimal refinements to get rid of all potential sex bias, and allow union classes to be eligible for some degrees previously restricted.to supervisory/managerial classes where it could be proved the scope of responsibility was comparable. 46 They do not use the same job evaluation factors for all of the job classifications included in this survey. They explained that for the Psychiatrist class, since "originally evaluation system results in pay ranges with only minimum and maximum rates to allow for flexibility in hiring and awarding raises. The class is now covered by contract"(from the survey). Additionally the pay range for the match for our Transportation Engineer was set by legal statute in the state of Ohio. There are twelve factors in the Ohio job evaluation system. Under the Equal Pay Act Categories, the skill factor has two subfactors which are worker-characteristics and mental skills. The second factor, effort has two subfactors which are mental demands and physical demands. The third factor, responsibility has six subfactors which are supervision exercised, policies & methods, assets, personal contacts, records 8 reports, and safety of others. The fourth factor, working conditions has two subfactors which are unavoidable hazards and surroundings. Focusing on the subfactors of skill, the Ohio system defines these as: Worker characteristics: this refers to the knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics required of the executive for acceptable performance on the job: the requirements for' knowledge of and interpretation and application of the principles and procedures of a field of study: the ability to define and solve problems: and the ability to participate in the development of policies and programs and apply the principles and procedures of management and administration. The determination of the level is based on the nature and complexity of the 47 Table 7 Test job categories as evaluated by the system used by the state of North Dakota. SLASSES SKILL*** TSQDIKDQHLSQSSSIREULJSESEBHIIBISIDSISQBAlflkflafl. (degree)* (degree) (degree) 1. Accountant Not factored 2. Attorney 6 A 3 176 3. Clinical Health Scientist N.C.C. 4. Clinical Social Worker 6 A 3 153 5. Data System Analyst Not factored 6. Laboratory Scientist N.C.C. 7. Librarian Not factored 8. Personnel Analyst II 6 A 3 153 9. Psychiatrist N.C.C. 10.Psychologist II 6 A 3 133 11.Registered‘Nurse I 5 A 2 101 12.Research Biologist N.C.C. 13.Social Services Specialist N.C.C. 14.Highway Engineer II 5 ' B 2 116 * Degree of level on the subfactor level. ** Technical knowledge, Managerial Breadth, and Interpersonal skills are treated as separate subfactors of "skill". ***The skill factor is one of the four factors used in N.Dakota. 48 knowledge, skill, ability or' other executive characteristics required. Mental skills: this refers to the necessity for, and the extent of analysis, judgment, initiative and ingenuity required in performing the duties of the position. The determination of the degree and the point rating for mental skills is based on the scope, variety and complexity of tasks, and skills required, the importance of decisions made, the extent of planning necessary, the frequency of occurrence of problems and their impact, and the difficulty in achieving solutions to problems. Consideration is given to the extent to which the requirement for mental skills is limited by the repetitive character of the work and the extent of supervision received. Findings for'the fourteen test job categories ranked.by the state of Ohio appear in Table 8. Iéflfléfifififi The State of Tennessee has used a point factor system to evaluate its jobs since 1984. The state is satisfied with its job evaluation system.but have encountered difficulties using it to grade classes which have high turnover and retention problems, and those classes whose salaries are market-driven. They use the same job evaluation factors for all of the job classifications included in this survey. There are thirteen factors in Tennessee's job evaluation system. The first category "skill" has two subfactors, knowledge and experience. The second category "effort" has six subfactors, supervision exercised, policy and methods, assets, personal contacts, records and reports, and safety of others. The third category "responsibility" has three subfactors, mental skills, mental demands, and physical demands. The 49 Table 8 Test job categories as evaluated by the system used by the state of Ohio. SLASSES SKILL*** Barkersauuuuuamlzrtuuuaurskills Total Deeree* Points Degree Relate 1. Accountant 11 28 5 16 44 2. Attorney 10 22 6 24 46 3. Clinical Health Scientist 10 22 5 16 38 4. Clinical Social Worker 9 17 4 10 27 5. Data System Analyst 9 17 4 10 27 6. Laboratory Scientist 10 22 4 10 32 7. Librarian 9 17 5 16 33 8. Personnel Mgmt. Analyst Not compared 9. Psychiatrist Not compared 10.Psychologist 11 28 6 24 52 11.Registered Nurse 10 22 4 10 32 12.Research Biologist 10 22 5 16 38 13.80cial Service Specialist 9 17 4 10 27 14.Tran. Engineer Set by law. *Degree or level on the subfactor scale. **Worker character and Mental skills are treated as separate subfactors of "skill". ***The skill factor is one of the four factors used in Ohio. 50 fourth category "working conditions" has two subfactors, unavoidable hazards and surroundings. There are two special classes and which should receive extra attention. One is 'Attorney', a position on the staff of individual agencies and which does not report to the Attorney General's Office. This class performs legal work comparable to that described in the test job profile given in the survey except that they rarely represent the agencies in court. This function is performed by staff in the Attorney General's Office. Salary for these Attorneys are unavailable. The other special case is Transportation Engineer. The point total score of this class does not correspond to the salary grade because the salary for this class is market-driven. The total points have been included in this survey but are not used for the purposes of setting salaries for this class. Findings for the fourteen test job categories appear in Table 9. EQIEQQL In 1985, the State of Vermont was in a transition period between use of the Hay system.and.a highly similar system used by Norman Willis & Associates of Seattle. They are now using the Willis system and use the same job evaluation factors for all of the job classification included in. this survey. According to the survey respondent, generally speaking, the great majority of employees seem satisfied with the system, 51 Table 9 Test job categories as evaluated by the system used by the state of Tennessee. Queens SJILU“ W W Tetal In: mints .129... points 1. Accountant 6 22 1c 4 26 2. Attorney 10 40 1c 4 44 3. Clinical Health Scientist No match 4. Clinical Social Worker 8 30 -------- 3O 5. Data Systems Analyst 6 22 1c 4 26 6. Laboratory Scientist 7 26 1c 4 . 30 7. Librarian 8 30 2c 8 38 8. Personnel Management Analyst 6 22 3c 12 34 9. Psychiatrist No match 10.Psychologist lo 40 ------- 40 11.Registered Nurse 5 15 1b 3 18 12.Research Biologist 9 34 1c 4 38 13.Social Services Specialist 6 22 1c 4 26 14.Transportation Engineer 7 26 1c 4 30 *Degree or level on the subfactor scale. **Know1edge and Experience are treated as separate subfactors of "skill". ***The skill factor is one of the four factors used in Tennessee. 52 based upon the(low) number of appeals. However, as a result of their comprehensive classification review (1984-86) certain occupational groups (engineering and data processing, in particular) felt that they lost ground in relation to other occupational categories. They have criticized the Willis evaluation system as a result. Yet, according to the survey respondent, the real issue is compensation relative to market rates, rather than internal equity in class ranks. Findings for the fourteen test job categories ranked by the Vermont system appear in Table 10. a 'n o The State of Washington has used a point factor system to evaluate jobs since 1984. They use the same job evaluation factors for all of the job classifications included in this survey. There are eight factors in their job evaluation system. The first category, knowledge & skills, has two subfactors, job knowledge and interpersonal skills. The second category, mental demands, has two subfactors, independent judgment and problem solving. The third category, accountability, has two subfactors, freedom to take action and impact on results. The fourth category, working conditions, has two subfactors, physical effort and hazards. The main factor is defined as: Knowledge and skills: encompasses the total amount of understanding, familiarity with facts or information, or 53 dexterity necessary to perform the job in a satisfactory manner. It may be gained through experience, association, aptitude, training and/or education. There are two parts to this component: one is job knowledge-what the position incumbent must know or know how to do to perform satisfactorily. The other is interpersonal skills-direct contact skills in relationships with people within and outside the organization. Findings for the fourteen test job categories appear in Table 11. Cgmparison Across States The ratings described above and presented individually in Table 3 to 11 can also be compared across the states. For example, Table 12 shows the Ranking Order Comparison among nine states (only using the skill factor). There were several steps involved in producing this table. First, the State of Michigan Civil Service Department defined the educational or degree requirements for each of the job categories. These were then coded, using "1*" for general bachelors, "**" for specific bachelors, "$" for general masters, "$$" for specific masters, "+" for Ph.D, and "++" for M.D.(medicine). These requirement codes are based on the "Summary of Qualification Required" for each of the fourteen job categories in Michigan(see Appendix 3). Then, using the total points for each of the fourteen test job categories, (as evaluated by the each state, see Tables 3 to 11), the overall rank order was produced for each state. Finally, a rank order comparison across the nine states was produces. 54 Table 10 Test job categories as evaluated by the system used by the state of Vermont. ELBSEES _____EHQHLED§E_§_§KILLS* W Paints. 1. Accountant E1N*** 184 2. Attorney In exempt service, no rating available. 3. Clinical Health Scientist ElY 212 4. Clinical Social Worker ElY 184 5. Data System Analyst ElN 212 6. Laboratory Scientist Elx 160 7. Librarian ElN 160 8. Personnel Management Analyst El! 184 9. Psychiatrist Pl! 320 10.Psychologist E1! 244 11.Registered Nurse ElN 160 12.Research Biologist ElN 184 13.30cial Services Specialist E1! 184 14.Transportation Engineer ElN 184 *The "knowledge and skill" factor is one of the four factors used in Vermont. **Degree or level on the skill scale. ***The Vermont system used a combined set of rating levels (degree) to determine the number of points. For example, using the Accountant category, "E" is the fifth level of the subfactor "job knowledge": "1" is the first level of the subfactor "job knowledge": and "N" is the second level of the subfactor "interpersonal skills". There are combined to create "ElN" which corresponds to 184 points. 55 Table 11 Test job categories as evaluated by the system used by the state of Washington. SLAEEEE ENQELED§E_£__§KILL* Mtge: Paints. 1. Accountant 2 E1N*** 160 2. Attorney No Evaluation 3. Clinical Health Scientist No Evaluation 4. Psychiatric Social Worker II ElY 244 5. Computer Analyst/Programmer 3 ElN 184 6. Chemist 2 Elx 160 7. Librarian 3 PIN 212 8. Personnel Analyst 3 El! 212 9. Psychiatrist No Evaluation 10.Psychologist 5 FlY 320 11.Registered Nurse 1 D1N 140 12.Wildlife Biologist 2 ElN 160 13.Social Worker 2 ' E1! 212 14.Transportation Engineer 3 ElN 184 *The "knowledge and skill" factor is one of the four factors used in Washington. **Degree or level on the skill scale. ***The Hay system used a combined set of rating levels (degree) to determine the number of points. For example, using the Accountant 2 category, "E" is the fifth level of the subfactor "job knowledge"; "1" is the first level of the subfactor "job knowledge"; "N" is the second level of the subfactor "interpersonal skills". There are combined to create "ElN" which corresponds to 160. 56 In Table 12, we are able to see the range of rankings for each.test job. For example, the class of Accountant was ranked from one(highest) to eleven(near lowest) among nine states. We also see the patten of rank order among the nine states. For example, for those classes which require post-master's degree were ranked "the highest". The classes of Psychiatrist and Psychologist were ranked at the top, numbers 1 and 2 respectively. Those classes which require master degrees were ranked higher than those which require only bachelor's. But this is not in all the cases. The class of Librarian was ranked the lowest in Vermont, even though it requires special master's degree. It is a female-dominated job. Moreover, for those classes which are female-dominated jobs were ranked lower than those which are male-dominated jobs, regardless the educational requirement. For example, Transportation Engineer was ranked higher than Librarian. A Table 13 represents the total points comparison among the nine states. This table not only considers the skill factor but also other factors such as: effort, responsibility, and working conditions. The chart was created by computing the total points each job category received using factors derived from the Equal Pay Act Categories. Table 14 was created using the same procedures as Table 12. First, using the total points for each of the fourteen test job’ categories, the rank. order ‘was established fer the fourteen job categories in each state. Then, the ranking order 57 comparison was produced among the nine states. From Table 14, we are able to see a few findings. First, the range of rankings for each test job was shown. Second, even under the Equal Pay Act Categories, the same pattern of rank order was created (see comparison Table 12) . Psychiatrist and Psychologist were ranked the highest. Registered Nurse and Librarian were ranked the lowest in some states. Again, female-dominated jobs were usually ranked lower than male- dominated jobs. From these data, Table 15 was produced which shows the median value of the rating for each job category (based only on the skill factor). The reason for using the median is to avoid the effects of extreme numbers which occurs when the mean score is computed. In this table, the classes of Clinical Health Scientist and Psychiatrist were not included because many states reported that either they do not have a comparable class or have not evaluated this class. Table 16 represents the median value of the rating for each job category under all of the Equal Pay Act Categories. Again, the classes of Clinical Health Scientist and Psychiatrist were not included in this survey because many states reported that they either do not have a comparable class or evaluate this class. In Table 15 and 16, we see that the same pattern of median order was produced, for both "skill" and "Equal Pay Act categories". In both, female- dominated jobs were ranked lower than male-dominated jobs, for 58 amch H~ wear oncmn ooapanmosacmwco 05H< mxHHH neoconv men. onmmHnHomnHoc Hschss Hots bochHoss zHcsmmons z.ocxons OSHO ensconced consosn somchonos none . as H wonocsnosn a HH m m H u o m a no u >nnon=o< u H u w I n H I I + u onsHomH :mans monanmn I I I I I n I u I mm a OHstosH moonH source a m e m u o a m u s» u uses menma wssHKmn a H» c m I o u u m s m rsconsnonw monanmn a a HH a I a m .HH a mm a bHUHsHHs: a u Ho m I o u HH u s a wmnmocsoH HH m a m u I m m u successes" >39H0non=m< mmm mos Mung has uum c» He. III III + u nHHsHosH modew . moHnanmn III III IIII III III 4H III uou III mm a nHHsHosH mooHsH tonwmn uom umH Hone Mum ”am we Ham u». emu 4» u uses m59Hoqow H N Ho qumx Ho Hun how m<>rc>HHoz m>oaowm maceHecmo ecu mxHHH ecumesnsn wouvcsquHHHnu non chsansH ecu xenonHeH weeocnnau weavosmHvHHHnu man nae caHHIuoch on cases. wauvoanuHHHnw non HsmonmenHoc unmoocaHvHHHnw non nosscanenHoca use wcuHHn on-nHosm wswanuH Manon" muonsH re cmunna Nu.un Hu.on Ho.on Ho.ou Ho.ou u.un u.ou u.ou u.on u.ou 72 0\»u\ao zmn woeHnoc H\uH\oo msnnow H I muonrnunm >zc mxHrr nsHa monnon noon. nun xsocHodmo one axHHHn nobcHnon no vonmons eonr oumessosnn nwvwnoH on non nHoau on nun onvoansnnd HooaH can: one onbcHnon nanocwr occnonHoo one eonr onvonHocno. cannon coannHmnHoc woman» H conx omaHmcsncnm no son consoHHn HseoHeo noocncm occ eanHcm. msvHowoou Ho nro nHona son an »m naacHnoc no noon Ho onnnn no moHHoe Hconncnnnooo one no eano H: oncon no woos HHnna one nosoHnna mono». nonr mow noacHno nae ocHHHnu no nocsn. one ocn ocvnnonn. uoc rcoeHoomo one mxHHH. sonaoHHn noncoc nunocnr oooo noconoH eonr onsonHocno noHonoc no nso sonx oooansocno one nnacHnnc. » conx omnHmsamcna noacHnn noochm one noon eanHsm. nsvHowooo Ho nro nHoao one noncHnoc no noon on one nosvnasacn vnononcnoa occ voHHnHou one no eano Ho oncon no nosvHHo one onwocnuo HomonoonHos. conr son noncHnn oaHHHnw no ponnono oansooanoH noanHonHoco. gov wooeHoamo oco awHHHa consoHHw onacHnau nanocmw nocuHcanoaHo woconoH eonx envonHocno noHonod no non vnHonHvHo eonx oamHmsoocnu one noacHnoc. u conx omnwmcsmcnm nobcHno noochw ocn eanHcm. msvHowooo Ho nso nHouo one nobcnnoc no eano HMH nonnaavocnasno one novonna. con: son noacHno ocHHHnn no can odeocnoc oanrooan on no coannanosq sonvosoanoH nocnovn». gov rcoeHocmo one oxHHHu consoHHw onacHnod ncnocmr nosuHconoUHo mason-H eonx onvnnHacno on name oncnonnos noHonoc no n70 onncvonHoc. one nose ovonHoHHooc eonx onvoancnn. one noacHnoc. . s conr ommwmssosnn noacHno new ocHHHnn no noon. eana. coeoHov one ovan Homonsonnos naHonod no o »H» nunsaHnoH on uponHoHHnod nHoHc. are ocHHHnw no nossccHnono nonficHnoH on osonHoHnnoc Hcooo. noonnonn oon HomonsonHos convoHHn one He eanHsm Ho noncHnoc. con: son nobcHne oxHHH Ho nso can on sonsosoanm. gov xcoeHocmo oco orHHHo one sonooHHw wonsoc nanocnu o cHnonnHw noHonoc occnonHosoH enemnos osn\on noonHoHHuoc. nonvanoH envonnocno Ho nso ovonHmHn onoo on eonw. u conx ommHmssmcnm noncnno osvHowoo. Ho nan nHoau no cannon» noschonoaHo moonHoHHnod nonscHnoH »~u wooepnama one meHH Ho acne onooa on“ ocstonanm on n30 vswmnnoH on dHoHomHnoH announce. monHoH on unoHn: unnosnnm. vansono. onn. new ovHHHnw no onHchono. chonpnmn one nosccanona nosvHou. avonHoHHuoc. nonscnnoH nocnosno Ha noacnnoc. nonw sou noacHno oceoonnc mrHHH H: nun can on sonsosoann. how rooeHocmo one oxHHHo one sonsoHHw onncHnod nanocwr nosanconocHo anonnHw anonma occnonHos osd\on noanconoan avonHoHHnoa nonrcwnoH\vonovnomoomHosoH onvnnHocno Ho nun noonHmHn onus on eonw. ovononwosoH convnu Nu.un 7'5 woeHmoc o\»o\mu o\H\ao o\»u\oo Mbnnow » I Hccnmzmzn asno monnon noon» nun ”ccmosocn noacHnoc no ooro conHoHoso one norm onnHoso on HcmnoooHcm nosvHoanw. Hsponnocnm one nocooacnsno Ho oncon no nonnn con sent oooanoocno. cannon H voonnHMnHoc msvHonooo Ho nun nHooo noancoHa noonnHoo HHoHnoc “ccuemosn. >nnHoco one consoHHn canonsnsoc on ovoanHn HonnncnnHoso mnom nso occonenoon on on noHHochn eeHH cannons unonoccnoo. sonsono one unonanoo. msvHonooo Ho nun nHooo noancon coo uccmoeosn no sornbw conHoHoso scone oHnonsonHeoo one canonsncod on oonocHHoson voHHnHoo one vnonoocnoo. on monsoon osc vnonanoo. ochocno one cHnonnHoc one mason-HHw oeoHHodHo o. cocoon. msvHonooo Ho nan nHooo noancoHn coo Honovocnocn uccmosocn Hc sostw donHoHoco eHnsocn nococHanm oeoHHocHo ocvonze zsnnoosn monoconnm nsHu moonon nocx. nvo domnoo om nonvosoHvHHHnn one onnoccnocHHHnw non mncoanoH own sononHoH nooocnnoo om nso mnono. Hancchm nomoocowcHHHnn man. nso nocnnoH occ cHoccnoosocn on mecca one onron ccdwon Hnooo“ cocomososn on onnoccno” nro monomcondHcm. coo. on soncnococoo om uncoonnw. soncnoH nooocnnoo on oachsocn on onchHnocn eoHcou on nso ommHnHoonw om ovononHoco. uomnoo coonnnmnHoc woncno H xHoHsoH nonvocoHcHHHnn non choanoH on sononHoH nooocnnoo. Ho » womnosmHvHo one onnocsnovHo man cocoa. sononHoHo. vnovonnw. oncnvsoSn. onnocsno. on ommHnHocnn so on ovononHoco eHn: mncoanoH Havoon cc nso coponnsocn. w woovocoHcHo one onnoccnovHo won“ onchsocn. vcHHchmo. unoccco. socHoo. onn. om noannonocHo uo eoHco" on nso ommHnHocnw cm opononHoco eHns nosoHconoUHo choanoH Havonn cs nwo aoponnoocn. o nonvocmHuHo ocn onoocsnocHo non sononHoH nooocnnoo om onanHnosn doHco. non ocnsonHoHsu Hoo “m. oceanoanoH ouvosdnncnoo. non nosccnanm occHno. onn. eHn: oceanoanoH choanoH Hsvonn on nso douonnsocn. ovononnccoH conmrnu Ho.ou 7'5 woewuoc o\»o\m~ o\H\om o\~u\mo m>oaom o I mMMvozmHuHrHa< mow awn nmrrIunHzn on oemmxm ncHo monnon nocwo nvo comnoo on nomuocoHvHHHnn non nso eoHHIcoch on onsono Hancstw nonvosoHcHHHnw mon nro vnononanc on voovHo. nvo vnoeHoHoc om sooan nono. occnonnoaoH. novocHHHnonHoc osc noHonoc noneHnoo. one non ooocnnsm nro nHmsno on oomonn on onsono. Uomnoo H N coonnHMnHos xncHsoH nonvoschHHHnn non nso eoHHIcoch on onsono. woovoooHuHHHnw non vnoeHchw on ovsnoensn ooneHnoo tonnes o HHanod on HcdHnonn ommonn cs nso eoHHIcoHcm cm onsono. woovocoHoHHHnw non cHnonnHw onmonnHow nso acoHHnn on HHmo on eoHHIcoch on onrono nvnocw: nnoonsosn. nosouHHHnonHos. onn.« on nonvosoHuHHHnn non vnceHchw on ovvnoencw oonennoo soeHsm nocoHnonodHo HsaHnonn ommonn on nro eoHHIvoch on onsono. cHnonn nonvosoHvHHHna non nso vnononanc on voovHo mnos HHmoInSnoonocHsm sons. non occhHonoanm HHmoIooneox m I ”vaozmeHrHa% wow oozxcan>aH02m wzu wcuan wmr>HH02m acHo monnOn nocxm nro nomnoo om nonvoschHHHnn non nosscanoanm eHns onsono ononw on H: eanHcm. nso Haponnoono on non: nossccwnonwoco. occ nro demanHnn on nso HanonvonoosoH noHonHoco nobcHnoc no nonna ocn eonr ooonmcsosno. Uomnoo H counnHmnHoc nso canr chHcdoo nonvosoHVHHHnn non «Henna one nononencw monncoH HumansonHos onoHHw one cow HseoHeo ooso HHoHnoc eannoc noosccHoonHoco. woo eonr HseoHeoo nonvosoHcHHHnw non «Hech. nonoHensw. Hononpnonwsm. one oanoHsHsn HumanoonHoo. HononeHoech onsono no canons Humanoonucs. on ocnsonnsw annnos nooocanonHoco. nso eonr HseoHeoo nonposoHUHHHnw non ommonanw nso noeoHovsosn on cosoeHon on onsono nrnocms HanonvonoocoH ooasccHnonHoco“ on. non nocdcnann HceoonHwonneo HononeHoeo. onosocstm nosvHoH. nanHnoH HumansonHoc. on non ovaoHcst voHHon conHoHoso” on non ocnsoanw noovHon eannos noooccHnonHoso. aso eonr HceoHeoo noososoHcHHHnn non nso soon nosvHox HanonvonoosoH HonononnHoco one noaacanonHoso om nso :Hmroon comnoo om Havonnocno one Havonn acne om oonencw on coponnsosnoH ovoxomvonmoc. nomoccnsm Hanson one conHoHocm on unoeHchw oovonn nooanosw Ho occhHonnonneo on HomoH vnonoocHsmm. vnonao~ a I vmwmuo>r mmmowfi coonnHMnHoc conx HceoHeoo consoH ornoHnoH ommonn no oHn. con. on onocc on eHHH. eonr HoeoHeoo Hocw vonHoco on nocchon oHnnHow on onoancw. eonst. coccst. nooncnsw. ovonoanw ommHno oachsocn. onn. conr HseoHeoo noooHconooHo nnoeHch. voccnsn on onoovHsm H: noschoo oponoo. nHHochw Hoccono one onommoHcst. nonnanm oocho Hood». HHmanw sooew ovhonno. on voovHo. conw Hcw>nanxnnnc u< zoumw>dm wmxmun>r UHmoozwowa can Ho onmm. mm>a. norm. UHwa.ow czmrn>m>za ocowm. nso ecnx oseanssocn Ho nsononnonHood cw concsmcnnocHo nosvononcno eonHoanco on covHoooocn HoeoHo cm ccnoo. econ one cHnn. meson. anon. on coocsoon. nso ecnx oseancaocn Ho nsononnonHood on noncononcnoo. ccHoo HoeoHo. coscsoom. econ. cHnn. scchco mason. on oncno eans ono oonnoso. s\o\oo m\~o\mo ~\»o\oo Hn doom ccn ncsoncon noaccnonw cn vchno u no um uo ovonoancoH cowmsnu u.ou '81 wquooc u\»o\au s\H\oa o\»w\mo »\»u\oo abnaow Ho I can” m>~>wUm ano monncn nosxo nso comnoo cm rooonn HcecHeon H: nso can: one nro uncoocHHHnw cm Honcnnnsn eonx noHonoa HHHsooo on chcnw Ho nso consoH occccnn on nso eonr ooocoHsn nso ccooneocno on oHH sooHns occ oomonu nowcHoanco. connoo coonnHmans wcHsno H nso ecnx HcecHeoo HHnnHo on so onvcocno no ccnr noHonod HHHcooo on Hsucnn. u » nso eonw HcecHooo oncHMHnocn neocoo on Honcnnncw chcnn cn HHHsooo. ado ooancocooo »o son noHH non oncmoooncsoH mocHnoH nnoonoocn one son nobcHno ano oeow mnco ecnr. u nro ecnr HoeoHeoo onchHnocn nsoono on Honcnann mmeocm cHoocHch. on HHmo nonoonooHsn um HHHcooo on rozn emu: HHHcooo on Houcnw. a. awn new“ Hzza cabana on Hzncwszn erfi memvamszo qucw<. mo ovononwccoH consnu u.on APPENDIX 3 Survey Research for State Michigan Civil Service Department 82 68V". SERVICE COUMlfl|ON LAURENCE B. DEITCH WALTER R. GREENE PATRICIA B. JOHNSON ALAN A. MAY 83 STATE NW 8 JAMES J. BLANCHARD. Govunor DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE P. 0. BOX soon: LANSING. ”CHIN «so MARTHA 81888. Store Person“ Olreeror August 16, 1989 Dear The Michigan Civil Service Department is currently conducting a survey of several jurisdictions which were reported to be developing or using a point factor job evaluation system in a study conducted by the International Personnel Management Association in 1985. Of particular interest to us at this time is how different systems are being used to evaluate professional classifications at bachelor's, master's, and post-master's degree levels, and how several classes are ranked by job evaluation points in your system. We would greatly ap reciate your organization's participation in our survey. We won d be happy to provide you a copy of our findings if you would like one. Enclosed is a copy of the job description for each of the fourteen classes about which we are gathering information. An example of a partially completed survey form for the State of xxx is also included. Please report on the job class/classes in your jurisdiction which are most similar to the job descriptions we have enclosed and which most nearly match the qualifications requirements listed. We would also appreciate receiving a copy of your job descriptions for the identified classes if they are available. Please return the completed questionnaire by September 1, 1989. If you have any questions regardingathe survey, please call me at (517) 373-1698. Our FAX # is 517 5-0054. Sincerely, 11+ 0 r‘ s.;;—'\ Katie Garner Merit Systems Review Person Completing the Survey Title 84 Participant Information Sheet Organization Phone # Address -Is the information you provide foz the survey confidential? Yes -Would you like to receive a copy of the results 7 Yes No NO Directions for completion of the attached form: 1. Please review the job descriptions we have enclosed and determine whether there is a comparable classification in your system. A summary sheet indicating the qualification r irements for each class surveyed is provided for your in ormation. If there is a comparable class in gaur system, please provide the information requested low A sample of a partially completed form is provided for your information. A. Please list specific job evaluation factors used in your system under each Equal Pay Act Category. B. List the assigned degree for each specific job evaluation factor and the number of points. C. Show the total number of job evaluation points for each class. 85 Please answer the questions below: 1. Does your jurisdiction use the same job evaluation factors for all of the job classifications included in this survey? Yes No If No, please describe the differences A. We previously received a copy of your job evaluation fators dated . Are they stil being used? Yes NO 8. We do not have a copy wf your job evaluation factors, please send us a cop‘ of your factors. C. If on are not able to rovide a co of your factors, p ease explain how '5 ill“ is r within professional non-supervisory classifications in your system. Is your jurisdiction satisfied with the job evaluation system/systems being used to rank the jobs included in this survey? Yes No If No, please explain reason 86 ... ... £312.}. «one. - . . . . _.: sq ~ anato:m.e.._.< nc:e_..o:m gov mnnocnasn en~0a cannon www.msee mo‘ eo.:nm . >nn01so< ~n~o« enuqna oumwmsod w‘oq eo_:~m .n__:_no_ :oe_n: mn_o:n_un annex nausea emu—mace new no.3»u a. n__:_nu_ w0n_e_ tenrow «annex menses E2. e o‘ eo_:nm m. can» m:e_nnow e< nonnow ocean u.n__s_n _ :oe_n: mn_o:n_un wmnnoq ounce a n__:_m%_ men—m. (eaten wmnHOw sauna owns m m wonnow mmnmSm >:m_