Spring and Summer 2017 IRP Challenges
WHY CSUEU PREPARED THE IRP REQUESTS
CSUEU prepared the In-Range Progression requests to accomplish three things. First, we wanted employees to see how far behind the salary system was leaving them with new hires. Second, we wanted to give them a chance to catch up using the IRP option in the contract. Third, we wanted employees to understand how a better system was needed because of the defects in the current discretionary option (and Human Resources weak approach).
THE DATA WE USED
CSUEU has information available from the Personnel Information Management System (PIMS) provided by the State Controller. This information is used to run payroll deductions for membership dues and Fair Share Fees and to satisfy disclosure requirements to the Union. This data shows us the name of every employee in our bargaining units, their salary, their hire date, and their date in classification. We used this to determine whether after an individual was hired other people were hired in the same classification at a higher salary than the individual currently was paid.
NUMBER OF PEOPLE AFFECTED
There were 785 people out of roughly a 1000 person work force who were passed over after hiring. This represents a very high percentage of employees and that almost everyone is eventually affected by “inversion” (the technical term for being passed by). In effect, most long-term employees pay a “loyalty penalty” for staying at SDSU and being passed over.
NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO SUBMITTED REQUESTS
Of the 785 people we contacted, about 400 submitted IRP requests. This was the largest number submitted on any campus.
At the CSU Board of Trustees meeting in July 2017, Campus Presidents were told not to worry about IRP requests from the Union (actually from employees). With identical form letters issued at multiple campuses (including CSU San Marcos and San Diego State University) we believe the solution adopted for mass requests was mass denial.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE “REVIEW AND ANALYSIS”
The form letter states that the denial is based on “thorough review and analysis.” Absolutely no details were provided. We know that the response is contradicted by two sources of objective data: (a) the PIMS information supplied by the State Controller, and (b) the market salary lag data supplied by the Chancellor’s Office. No actual review took place by Human Resources.
CHAPTER PRESIDENT ROBERT YSLAS RESPONSE TO THE FORM LETTER DENIALS
CSUEU is taking several actions in response to the mass denials. We are demanding detailed responses for the “thorough review and analysis” of every denial. Letter to HR. We are filing an unfair labor practice for unilaterally changing the contract (substituting arbitrary denial for review on the basis of equity). We are also calling on all employees to demand a real response from Human Resources on their denial.
We know that employees deserved better than a form letter from their campus administration after years of service. It is shameful that Human Resources would ignore the facts and that administrators would continue a system that penalizes longevity. On our campus, we have fought for years to get a regular budget line item for IRP. In systemwide bargaining, we are working for a better defined system with mandatory service increases. We need to work together to make these solutions a reality.
SAMPLE APPEAL LETTER
There is no formal appeal process for IRP (one of the things the Union is trying to change in bargaining) but there is a requirement to explain the decision. SDSU said as much in the form letter inviting employees who were denied to ask questions. We suggest that these questions be sent to Human Resources: Sample
IRP Helpful Information
For more information on IRPs see Know Your Rights (KYR) link on the right side of this page under Quick Links.
- KYR #2 Compensation covers the different ways that employees get paid, including general salary increases, reclassification, in-class progression, bonuses, shift differentials, and emergency pay.
- KYR #11 IRP(Also known as CSUEU IRP: A Practical Guide) provides an overview of in-range progressions, a provision of the CSUEU-CSU contract that provides a method for employees to move through their salary ranges as they assume additional or enhanced responsibilities and skills. An in-range progression carries a minimum salary increase of three percent and no maximum increase.
Note: There is a similar but different process for Reclassification, which occurs when an employee is working 50% or more of their assigned duties in a higher classification.
An older KYR #1 Reclassification and In-Class Progression covers the differences between the two options. We plan to address Reclassification at a later date.