Pay, job level, and education

crawfod

We have an employee who already had the minimum education and certifications necessary to perform the job he was hired for. Now he has achieved more education/certifications on his own time, and his department head wants to create a higher level job, with more money of course, partly in fear that this good employee will market themselves elsewhere. I told him he would need to create additional duties or skills that would separate, say, level I from level II, and also to indicate what education/certifications are required for each level.

How do you guys feel about classifying jobs or making changes when the incumbent(s) later improve their skills or education beyond the necessary requirements of their current job?

Gillian3

Not change the job to a higher level because the job is what it is with the qualifications that you have determined are appropriate. If it important to reward people for higher education levels or to increase chances of retention, you might want to give a pay increase to individuals who attain a higher level of education if there is an advantage to do that. If you do, it would be best to be a policy, in general, rather than for one person.

HRockets

As long as the education was geared toward the current position, we offer certification pay once you present your diploma or certificate of completion.

Don D

You do what you have to do to retain the people you want to retain. Strapping yourself to a particular method by writing a policy is not the best approach. Your bag of tricks is limited only by your imagination. As long as your imagination includes smart business decisions that are defensible, if challenged.

System

If I recall, you are also a local government entity. I'm usually not in favor of creating a position or re-grading a position to accommodate an employee. In order to justify doing either, I would create a new job description with added responsibilities and essential functions. In a grade/step environment like yours and ours, that happens. Another alternative is to write a longevity plan to compensate employees who've reached the top end of the table.

marc

How hard would it be to replace this inidividual? The costs of turnover aside, if the local junior college is turning out 50 of this type of employee every semester, then perhaps it would be better to not be held hostage to someone who improves themselves beyond the needs of the job.

I think you hold on to good people when you find them, but it is not always feasible without totally upsetting the apple cart.

SMace

I think you should structure your jobs to fit the organization's operational goals. Then you fit the right person in the job.

I would not adjust a job simply because someone has new credentials. It also has to fit the needs of the organization.

crawfod

"Sam", you're right, I'm in local government, and the position is a Plumbing/Mechanical Inspector in our Codes Department. He is not close to being topped out pay/step wise, and we do offer Longevity Pay for years of service.

"Marc", these type City positions with their unique certifications are often difficult to replace. The catch for them is to go to another city will mean travel expenses or relocation, so it generally will take a great pay package to go, which is in our favor, but if they do go, our city now has the challenge to find someone to come here.

Unless the Codes Manager can create a PMI II job description that truly has meaningful additional duties worthy of more pay, our City Council can be tough to approve such a move.

System

We have the same thing here. Our Highway Inspector and Stormwater Program Manager are 'capped.' We can't keep regrading specialized positions like these. It's a 'quick fix' but a better case for succession planning and mentoring. That's a 'whole nother' plan.

pork1

CRAWFORD: I have just read this morning that Deloitte & Touche in Michigan have found that it cost $12,000 in recruitment and training expenses to replace an average non-professional worker and $35,000 to find a new professional. If these cost are real in our area, we probably should be looking at the cost effectiveness of what we do today in retaining personnel in sensitive areas of our business, regardless of what is our business. If that means "you need to find whatever way to keep this person on board", then do it. Now creating new words that have little use in describing what is the job of this person just to keep him around, I think I would be hard pressed to do that.

Giving this person a new position that already fits his talents and educational credentials would be the smarter thing to do for the benefit of the whole company.

The experts have written that it will take 75% of ones annual wages to replace a non-professional and 150% to replace a managerial person. Your person is, obviously, enhancing his self-worth and if the company does not appropriately respond he may be soon gone. I suggest you flex the companies' efforts and show this employee that the company does recognize his efforts and self improvement or be prepared to accept his turnover.

PORK