HR = SS?

Several years ago, SEIU tried to organize all the non-union professional and scientific staff members here at the University of Iowa. The attempt failed miserably because most of us are pretty happy with our jobs and don't feel the need to have union representation. One of the primary reasons I voted against the measure was that it was never made clear how the SEIU would be able to adequately represent the needs of a bench scientist and say, one of the law librarians at the same time. We have different needs professionally and it would be difficult if not impossible to meet both needs without having to make unreasonable demands. Times may be changing.

The Human Resources department has been growing disproportionately to the workforce and instead of being an intermediary between us and the administration, has become, in the eyes of many, the paramilitary arm of the administration. For several years there has been a low level battle raging between HR and the two big unions we have here on campus. HR pulls underhanded tricks to fire (largely unsuccessfully) people the administration considers to be problems. Sometimes the terminations are merited and the terminations are not disputed by the unions. Two of the people they have attempted to fire within the past year are the former and current president of one of the unions. One of the terminations was accomplished by HR simply reclassifying job titles and telling the individual that his job was no longer a position at the University and therefore his service was not needed. The current AFSCME president was also terminated by HR for a likewise ridiculous reason but due to union intervention had his job back within a week.

So here is what is bugging me. For the past year, HR as been undergoing a big reclassification process for all the Professional and Scientific staff. They claim that it is to more adequately represent the actual duties being performed by staff members and to help more closely align our salary structure with the market (which market? The academic or the biotech one? They won't answer that question.). I understand and even applaud their attempts. Currently there are three classifications in my job family which are very broad. The problem is that they are essentially demoting many researchers. People like me who are managing labs and taking on a lot of the day to day responsibility of running the lab, training everybody, ensuring that policies are being followed, etc... are being lumped with everyone else who may be doing the same type of science but don't have any management responsibilities. Personally, I don't care what my job title is but the problem is that the salary cap is going to be adjusted lower. This means that within a couple of years, I will most probably be at my salary cap. I cannot afford to be 45 and topped out. HR is giving individuals the opportunity to appeal their reclassification (I already have done so) but from what I understand, there is not a lot of hope that we will actually be bumped up where we should be. My point in all of this is that if HR simply rubber stamps denied on all the appeals, they are going to be looking at the currently unorganized staff standing up and joining a union which will in the long run cost the University more money. If the University really wants to save money, they need to stop rubber stamping longevity raises and stick to merit based raises. More importantly, the UI needs to stop building more buildings for which there really isn't a need. We are grateful to all of our donors but perhaps we need to say, "no, we can't afford to match your donation right now." Or perhaps we should ask our donors if they would be willing to use their donation to fund scholorships or endowments not just buildings.

I could rant on forever but this is much too long as it is. There are several additional issues involved here - one was reported on NPR yesterday - but I will save them for another day.