University Times

Why does an experienced employee sometimes make less salary than a new person hired from outside the University for a comparable staff position?

Staff Association Council (SAC) members discussed Pitt’s seemingly inconsistent salary policies last month with Ron Frisch, associate vice chancellor for Human Resources, at the group’s Dec. 13 meeting.

In a nutshell, Frisch said, guidelines governing internal promotions and transfers are set University-wide and are different from guidelines for outside hires. “This represents a disconnect [because] there really are two different decision models,” he explained.

“There are a number of scenarios that exist where a current employee can get an increase in salary” that is not tied to the annual salary pool increase, Frisch said. “It could be an internal promotion; it could be a job re-classification based on additional duties, or it could be a [position] move from one pay grade to a higher pay grade.”

There are 76 different job families, but only 12 pay grades, which accounts for the overlap of different job “generations,” he said. “For example, a secretary III and an administrator I, which are in the same pay grade, are delineated by the duties of the job.”

A pay grade has a minimum and a maximum, and can range broadly from as much as $20,000 to $55,000, Frisch said.

“So there is a lot of overlap in pay grades, which is another reason they’re so broad because they cross many different generations of jobs.”

Under University-wide guidelines, a transfer employee who moves up one pay grade is eligible for up to a maximum 10 percent increase from his or her current salary, Frisch pointed out. A move up two pay grades could mean as much as a 20 percent raise. But neither move guarantees any raise, he added.

About a third of employees transfer within the University at least once during their careers, he noted.

“The other piece of this is when we want to attract and hire new people and to offer fair market price for the job,” Frisch said. That is why Human Resources annually evaluates the pay grades for their market value, he added. “This fiscal year we moved the pay grades up 2.5 percent and last year we moved them up 4 percent,” he noted.

“When we hire new people, a department makes a request for salary and they justify it based on the person’s experience, current salary, education and so forth. So we’re paying for [an individual’s] different skill sets. That’s different from an internal promotion, where compensation staff are looking at job duties not individuals, and which has to fit within the range already established,” taking into account the employee’s current salary level, Frisch said.

“These are some of the disconnects, and we are looking at these things,” he said. “This is where SAC’s salary and job classification committee can have an impact in these discussions. It’s an age-old issue in the world, not just at Pitt. It’s a societal issue — not that it’s right. Hiring models are established anywhere you go, that doesn’t mean it’s an excuse not to look at this issue.”

He urged the salary and job classification committee to put these issues on its agenda. “If you look at this from the salary and job classification perspective, the question is: Do we have a fair system if I may not get the same rewards as a new hire?

“Our commitment [at HR] is to make sure we are getting as much money as possible to our current staff, and a lot of different things go into that,” including raising the maximum ranges of the pay grades, he said.

“There’s nothing wrong with being a secretary III your whole career as long as you’re getting a fair and equitable salary and are challenged. But we also need to provide more opportunities to be paid more,” Frisch said.

One way to do that is to reward superior performance instead of increasing salaries across the board. “I’m a big believer in rewarding performance,” he said.

*

SAC also affirmed 17 new associate members Dec. 13, bringing SAC’s membership to 67, the highest total in several years. Associate members serve for six months before assuming full membership, when they become eligible to serve as committee chairs.

New associate members are: Colleen Abt, Lupus Center of Excellence; Michele Aldrich, Office of Institutional Advancement; Sean Bridgen, Arts and Sciences advising; Mary Ellen Carey, Department of Medicine/Infectious Diseases; Patti Chioda, Office of Clinical Research; Allison Ehrhart, McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine; Bill Heller, Facilities Management; Marsha Lee, Department of Medicine; Gloria Limetti, Department of Otolaryngology; Deborah M. Simak, Division of General Internal Medicine; Anita Sorrells, School of Dental Medicine, continuing education; Andrew Stephany, Mailing Services; Kathryn Trent, Facilities Management; Pamela Weid, Department of Theatre Arts; Janice Stankowicz Welch, Dental Public Health and Information Management; Jennifer Welton, School of Engineering, development and alumni, and Dewi Wong, Facilities Management.

In addition, Aldrich was affirmed as co-chair of the marketing and communications committee, and Heller was affirmed as co-chair of the safety and security committee.

—Peter Hart