Who took our steps away?
Raises don’t come easy . Here is a History of Merit Salary Adjustments. Printed in CSUEU's "University Employee" newsletter, Sept. 2005, by Teven Laxer, CSUEU Senior Labor Relations Representative
Prior to the enactment of the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) and prior to collective bargaining, it was the practice of the CSU to pay Merit Salary Adjustments (MSAs) to its employees. MSAs were paid to eligible employees continuously from 1945 until 1982, when the first collective bargaining agreement between CSEA and CSU became effective.
In 1945, the Merit Salary Adjustment (MSA) system was created by statute (GC 18854, which was changed to GC 19832 in 1981.) Even though state college employees were exempted from civil service in 1934, their pay increases mirrored those provided to state civil service employees. Education Code Section 20373 provided that the duties and salaries of state college employees were to be fixed by the Director of Education, subject to the approval of the State Board of Education. MSAs were paid to employees of the state colleges in the same manner as they were paid to state civil service employees.
In 1953, Education Code Section 20373 was amended so that the State Personnel Board was empowered to establish and adjust the salaries of state college employees in the same manner and following the same procedures as in the establishment and adjustment of state civil service salaries. Therefore, Government Code Section 18854, which authorized MSAs for civil service employees, was now applicable to state college employees. This statute remained applicable to state college employees until the enactment of the Donahoe Higher Education Act.
The Donahoe Higher Education Act of 1960 transferred the management, administration, and control of state college employees from the State Department of Education and the Director of Education to the Trustees of the State Colleges, effective July 1, 1961. In 1963, the CSU wrote the University and Colleges Administrative Manual, known as UCAM. UCAM Sections 6233.08 and 6233.13.02 authorize the payment of MSAs to CSU employees.
The Board of Trustees authorized the payment of MSAs to eligible employees continuously from 1961 through 1982, when the first collective bargaining agreement between CSEA and CSU became effective. From July 1982 to April 1994, MSAs were paid to California State University employees pursuant to the terms and conditions of various collective bargaining agreements.
In the late 1980s, Governor Deukmejian stopped funding step increases. For a few years, the CSU continued to pay for MSAs out of campus budgets. Then, in FY 1988, the CSU unilaterally suspended MSAs. CSEA filed a state-wide grievance, which went to arbitration. We lost that case because language in the contract at the time specified that funds be specifically appropriated for MSAs by the state legislature. Recognizing that flaw in our contract, CSEA made sure that the language changed in the 1989 contract. MSAs continued until June 1992, when the CSU yet again unilaterally suspended MSAs. This time, CSEA filed an unfair labor practice charge. After many years of hearings and court appeals, the CSU was eventually ordered to pay over 4,000 employees. The cost to the CSU was over $20 million and was the largest back pay case in the history of the Public Employees Relations Board.
There is a common misconception that needs to be corrected. The union did NOT bargain away step increases. They were unilaterally taken away and replaced with performance pay and open ranges in April 1996.
In 1995 bargaining, CSU proposed that MSAs be eliminated and replaced with discretionary performance pay. CSEA refused to dismantle the fifty-year-old step program and the parties declared impasse. After exhausting the statutory impasse procedures of mediation and fact-finding, the CSU unilaterally took away steps and for the first time in the history of CSU collective bargaining, they imposed terms and conditions on employees. Effective April 1, 1996, management was given the sole discretion to give or not to give performance pay to CSEA-represented employees.
Over the next few years, CSEA documented the abuses and the rampant discrimination and favoritism that are inherent in performance-based pay systems. We documented that employees in bargaining units 5 and 2 rarely received performance pay. We documented that an employee who was honored by a university president as employee of the year did not receive performance pay, but someone who had been suspended did. In 1999 bargaining, CSEA and CSU agreed to form a labor management committee to deal with the horrendous consequences of performance pay.
The LMC met for one year and in 2000 bargaining, CSEA and CSU agreed to eliminate both Performance-Based Pay (PBSIs) and Service-Based Pay (SBSIs) and replace them with a Merit Salary Increase (MSI) Program. This was a major step forward, especially in the IT series, since the artificial SBSI max barrier was eliminated. All classifications now had minimum and maximum salary rates. The MSI program called for all employees rated at the same level of performance on the same campus to receive exactly the same percentage increase. No longer would there be arbitrary and capricious merit increases. We also agreed that no employee’s overall performance rating shall be changed after it has been presented to the employee for signature.
For many years, CSU employees have been writing letters and e-mails, signing petitions and participating in rallies in support of adequate pay raises and the restoration of a step program. In 2004 bargaining, CSEA and CSU agreed to restore language in our contract for a Service Salary Increase (SSI) program. There were no funds associated with SSI in 2004 but at least the structure was put in place.
On June 30, 2005, the CSU tentatively agreed to union demands to fund Service Salary Increases (SSIs). The CSU proposal is still far short of the SSI increase the union is seeking, but it is the first indication by the CSU that they support movement of employees within the salary ranges.
