Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Marlowe
It actually turns out we were both wrong. The whole Joint Job Evaluation thing wasn't even about employee evaluations, it was about determining how much each job makes. Its also a relatively new thing, just being implemented in 2007.
Which again, is something that the CAW should have no part in.
|
Where did you get that from? It doesn't appear to be about determining how much each job makes. Here:
http://www.workingatmcmaster .ca/me...plete-1-42.pdf (Page 93)
That above document is from 2006 actually.
"JOB EVALUATION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
1. Statement of purpose
The Parties agree that the job evaluation system (hereafter JE system) in place effective June 15, 2005 will be used to maintain pay equity and to ensure timely, accurate and consistent ratings of all jobs within the Bargaining Unit, through a transparent and understandable process. Maintaining the JE system is a joint responsibility of the Union and Employer."
And
4. Role of JJESC
The JJESC will oversee the process of distributing Job Content Questionnaires (JCQs) and receiving updated JCQs, referring jobs to the JRC for evaluation including new jobs (once filled) and existing jobs, and monitoring job postings for consistency. The JJESC will also ensure adequate advance training for all JRC members, resolve issues referred 93
by the JRC, determine any changes to the JE system, maintain documentation, analyse all relevant JE data, including consistency checking, release ratings of new and changed jobs, and communicate with the membership and University community on related matters. In order to make decisions, a quorum of two voting members or alternates representing each party must be present. Meetings will be held monthly, with agendas exchanged at least one week in advance. Additional meetings may be called by either party with two weeks’ notice and specification of agenda item(s) to be discussed. The JJESC will have two co-chairs (one member from each party) who will alternate distribution of agendas, chairing of meetings and minute production and distribution. Any failure to reach consensus will be referred to the Principals.
Once again, It makes absolute sense to have some members of your union have some role in the process, just to make sure that your rating is unbiased and accurate and to explain you the processes of the decision. If I was being evaluated at work I definitely wouldn't want it to be done by a random group of administrators who I've never met in a closed room somewhere in Gilmour Hall.
