HUMAN RESOURCES’ ROLE IN SUCCESSION PLANNING Succession planni.docx

HUMAN RESOURCES’ ROLE IN SUCCESSION PLANNING
Succession planning and stewardship of corporate talent pool is
a top priority for most companies. HRM can have a significant
impact on the succession planning process.
There are three general roles that HR leaders play in succession
planning.
1| THE CONSIGLIORE
HR can play a critical influential role in succession planning in
a variety of business models such a in Public Companies,
family-owned businesses and privately held firms.
The chief HR officer (CHRO) should serve as an idea generator,
a challenger and a confidant with an independent perspective to
the CEO and to the board. HR can also serve as someone who
can assist in the resolution of conflicts as they arise in the
succession planning process.
2| THE PROCESS OWNER
Without a capable individual providing strong and objective
process discipline, boards often revert to emergency closed door
sessions and uninformed decision-making. HR should be the
process steward for succession planning.
HR needs to create the process, provide the tools and put forth
succession candidates. HR should be a counselor who can help
neutralize emotions and make sure decision makers have an
objective perspective.
HR needs to be the leader and an integral and constant presence
in the succession-planning process

3| THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT
HR leaders need to know the leadership talent pool and provide
reliable and meaningful information on succession candidates.
HR should provide the insights about the strengths, weaknesses
and development plans for individuals as well as characteristics
of the talent pool overall.
HR must serve as the central repository and “paint a picture” of
various succession candidates. HR must present a succinct
summary of experience, responsibilities, past performance
ratings and development plans for all candidates .
The most important assessment is “An assessment of potential
— whether someone is ready to lead now, could step in in an
emergency, or needs additional development — is extremely
valuable to the company.
Company’s expect human resources to provide detailed talent
profiles of potential successor candidates, including strengths,
weaknesses and specific development needs, particularly in
areas that can help someone move to the next level. The HR
department needs to be prepared for any eventuality.
Human resources can play a critical role in matching the right
person for each situation.
For example, if the company needs someone to “shake things
up” it would be important for HR to have identified Change
Agents in the organization
It the company needs to know “Who would step in to fill a key
position in case of an emergency” HR should have identified
those in the organization
Human resources’ should and must take the lead and have a

primary role in succession planning.
Succession Planning and Human Resources
Succession planning is a process whereby an organization
ensures that employees are recruited and developed to fill each
key role within the company.
The role of HR is to actively pursue a process of Succession
Planning that ensures that employees are constantly developed
to fill each needed role.
As an organization expands, loses key employees, provides
promotional opportunities, and increases sales, succession
planning allows companies to have employees on hand ready
and waiting to fill new roles.
Effective, HR Management of proactive succession planning
allows the company to well prepared for expansion, the loss of a
key employee, filling a new or needed job, managing employee
promotions , and re- organizational opportunities.
Successful succession planning builds bench strength.
There’s more to succession planning than coming up with lists
of candidates for important positions on the back of a cocktail
napkin.
But unfortunately, that’s about as far as some companies take it
(if they’re doing it at all.) Then they end up scrambling looking
for replacements, hiring overly paid and risky outsiders, or

over-promoting unqualified candidates
As part of the succession planning process HR needs to identify
employees that may be needed for lateral moves, assignment to
special projects, team leadership roles.
HR must also recognize that one ancillary outcome of the
succession planning process is that a company can better retain
superior employees because they appreciate the time and
attention they receive from HR through this process.
Such employees are motivated and engaged when they can see a
career path for their continued growth and development
presented to them by HR.
The 10 best HR practices aligned with Succession Planning
1. HR must earn the commitment, involvement and Trust of the
CEO. Succession planning cannot be just an HR driven
paperwork exercise
2. HR must conduct regular talent reviews. HR must cast a wide
net throughout the organization looking for rising stars.
3. HR must identify pools of successors not just a handful of
key players. These “pools” of high potentials form the backbone
of a successful succession planning process
4. HR should take a “pipeline” approach to succession planning,
by indentifying talent at ALL levels of the organization.
5. Hold the executive team accountable. HR must measure key
activities and results, as part of the succession planning
process.

6. HR must align succession planning with overall business
strategy. HR must be in a position to “connect the dots” – what
we have vs what we may need.
7. HR must manage the irrational, political, and emotional
dynamics of succession. Ask anyone who’s ever been in the
thick of a succession planning program, it’s not for the faint of
heart. This is the stuff that you won’t find in a textbook, but
comes with experience and emotional intelligence. HR must
“Tell Truth to Power” to have a successful succession planning
program.
8. HR must be in a position to assess both past performance
and potential. Performance as a predictor of future success in a
new role. That’s a high risk.
9. HR must integrate succession planning with recruitment.
Both must play a critical role in the succession planning
process.
10. HR must make a serious commitment of time and resources
to Successionplanning.. The best HR Departments spend
considerable time on the succession planning process.
Performance Appraisal Criteria
1. Budget/Sales Numbers
2. Hiring/Firing/Turnover
3. Training Goals
4. Margins/Profits
5. Operational Goals
Forced Rankings

· 1. Outstanding 10%
· 2. Exceeds 10%
· 3. Meets 60%
· 4. Must Improve 10%
· 5. Fails to meet 10%
Pay Increases Tied to Performance Appraisals
Pay Increase Budget = 3.5% Average
1. 4%
2. 3%
3. 2%
4. 1%
5. -0-
360 Reviews ( Citical Componant of your Annual Apprasial
process)
All Done Electronically
Every Subordinate, Peer and
Supervisors will “grade” rank your performance on a 1-5 scale.
(you will be asked to complete one for your Manager and your
peers)
They may be asked to rank you on:
· Leadership

· Competency
· Strategic Thinking
· Tactical Skills
· Emotional Intelligence/Social Skills
(You will be asked to rank yourself as well).
Your “ranking ”will then be calculated for measuring your
overall appraisal performance score.
Most companies that use either a 360 program or conduct an
annual performance review process will usually ask each
employee to first conduct one on themselves.
Your boss will then either confirm your own measurement of
yourself or adjust it accordingly .
Example: Your boss has 10 direct reports and can only give out
1 top mark.. so if you grade yourself a 5, even if that’s fair and
you deserve it your boss may have to knock it down a notch or
two to reach his/her forced ranking formula. .
Performance Appraisals
A Unique HRM Process
One of the most unique and most controversial elements of HR
Management found in almost every American Company and
every employer is the process known as the Employee Annual
Performance Review.

In almost every case it is universally disliked, feared, maligned
and mistrusted; a process that despite all of these characteristics
remains for now embedded in HR management process.
In almost every case and scenario, employees find this annual
process painful, harmful, disrespected and fearful.. and yet it
remains a cornerstone of HR Practices.
Compounding this process is another HR practice used in most
public companies known as “Forced Ranking”..
This is where each year every employee is assigned a “number”
for their performance on a metered weighed scale where only
10% of employees are to get the highest numbers and 10% must
get the lowest
Examaple of American Forced Ranking
· 1. Outstanding 10%
· 2. Exceeds Expectations 10%
· 3. Meets Expectations 60%
· 4. Needs Improvement 10%
· 5. Fails to meet 10%
Pay Increases are then tied to Performance Appraisals
1. 4%

2. 3%
3. 2%
4. 1%
5. -0-
In most Larger American Comapies this is all done every year
on line Electronically
First each employee is asked to grade and rank themselves.
Then, in what is known as a 360 process each Subordinate, Peer
and all relevant Supervisors will “grade” rank your performance
on a 1-5 scale. (you will be asked to complete one for your
Manager and your peers)
They may be asked to rank you on:
· Leadership
· Competency
· Strategic Thinking
· Tactical Skills
· Emotional Intelligence/Social Skills
Your “ranking ” will be included as a criterial component for
measuring your overall appraisal performance score.
It has been my experience that this unique process has never
been well received by anyone who has been subject to it and
undergone its “rigor”
Point of fact, most American Companies that do execute this
process in any way find rare exceptions to that fact that it is
universally disliked.

It was started by consulting firms who created this “nightmare”
to mitigate or offset any potential claims of “racial” or “age”
discrimination but it has evolved as a defense against any type
of discrimination claims..
Walmart for example uses its performance review system as a
legal shield to keep in place lower pay increase for women and
diversity employees.
The US Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision affirmed the
company’s right to practice its annual review process even if
the result was that women and minorities were not promoted as
fast or as much as white males.
How do they do it ( how did they get away with it)
Walmart hires all employees into Grade levels, and provides
raises by Grade.
All employees in Grade Level 1 may get a 2% raise
All employee in Grade level 2 may get a 3% raise
All employees in Grade level 3 may get a 4% raises.
90% of all woman employees at Walmart are in level 1.
90% of all level one employees are women..
90% of Local Truck drivers are in Level 2..
90% of Local Truck Drivers are African American or people of
color

Long Haul Over the road truck drivers are placed a level 3
90% of Over the road drivers are white males.
Walmart in arguing its right to do this to the US Supreme court
did not deny this system of Level raises ..in fact they
acknowledged these statics..
Their argument however held up by the court (5-4) is that these
statistics did not prove “discrimination” per se under the
constitution.. the court agreed
So Walmart successfully used their annual performance
appraisal system as a “shield” from charges of discrimination.
I also find it interesting that foreign corporations doing
business in the US have not adapted this uniquely American
HRM concept.
Toyota in the US for example takes a different approach.
Rather than judging individual performance each year, its
review process revolves around the Team Concept in evaluating
it’s employees..
It judges everyone on the same team, everyone works together
and everyone is judged by the team’s performance.
Raises are handed out to an entire team.. there are no
individual “stars” who receive extra attention extra or pay..

From an HRM perspective however, this Team approach is not
always best suited for our American culture.
After all, should a Team Member who doesn’t pull their own
weight get the same raise as everyone else.
Example: On the other hand at GE every individual employee
every year is “force ranked”..
GE for over 20 years had a culture where every year anyone in
the bottom 10% was eliminated from the company.
It made for very tense performance review and overall tension
in the organization( especially during the last quarter of year)
Firing Skills: A Human Resource Skill Set
One element of Human Resources is the role that HR has to play
in firing employees.
There are consistent themes and concepts surrounding the
termination of employees.
Terminating someone’s job and employment is often a necessary
but difficult skill that some Human Resource Professionals find
difficult if not impossible to grasp, while others in the field do
progress to the point where they accomplish this difficult and

emotionally challenging task with skill and compassion.
I suggest there are approaches and steps that HR professionals
can adapt and put to use on an ongoing basis.
Professional Techniques Steps and Skills required to best
implement employee terminations
First and foremost terminations should never come as a “
complete shock and surprise”. In the worst case scenarios
Employees don’t even have a clue they are about to lose their
jobs.. its devastating to them ..and its really bad!!!! HR.
Instead HR should open up communications that “signal”
problems to the employees.. such as “ the company announced
today that it missed it’s financial projections and is mounting
an aggressive restructuring strategy aimed at resetting the
company’s business plans.”
Put yourself in their shoes. How would you want to be
treated. Remember that in almost every case it will at some
point happen to you of the course of your career. How will you
feel when it happens to you.. and it will.. These “feelings’ that
people have when they lose their job are always the same.. it’s
an HR experience that almost every employee will encounter..
many more than once.
Always be sure you do not make it “personal”. It was not
their fault that the company suffered a financial setback.. make

sure to be very clear that there was nothing more the person
could have done to save their job.. they did everything expected
of them and more.. it was beyond their control.. Allow the
person to leave with dignity and mutual respect.
Almost all terminations ( over 99.9%) are not “for cause”
make sure you reiterate this was not “their fault” and they were
a fine hardworking dedicated employee who unfortunately got
caught up in an economic downturn that required the
organization to change. There was nothing they or anyone
could have done about this; this was not of their doing.
Never throw anyone out of a building. Many companies are
very bad at this.. and HR is to blame.. every employee should
be allowed to to leave with dignity and respect, say their good
bye’s etc. Again this is a global universal theme.. Good HR is
the same all over the world when it comes to terminations.
Offer generous professional support and assistance. Good
severance is an investment in the future of the company. A
company’s reputation is at stake here.. again a there is a global
HR theme..
HR should recognize that the loss of a job has been rated
as one of the most difficult extremely high stress events in
anyone’s life... Again a universal global HR Theme.. Studies
have shown it to the # 3 worst personal experience right after
the loss of parent or loss of a spouse.
HR must anticipate questions that might be asked and be
prepared with answers. i.e pay, vacations, benefits, severance,
references. Again this is simply good global HR practice.. a
universal concept.

· HR must make clear to the employee that the decision to
terminate is final. There is no possibility to negotiate or change
the final outcome.. don’t offer or hold out hope to the
employee.. It not fair to the employee or good HR..
· Terminating employee is one of the hardest jobs and most
difficult tasks of HR Professionals .. it is so difficult in fact that
there is actually a trained cadre of HR professional trained to do
this type or work..
It not easy to do.. it should be hard and it is important…
A good professional should always remember and keep in mind
how they would like to be treated..
It happens all the time and you can expect that it will happen to
you.. Please remember that .. Its important..
Recruiting Process: Multiple Sources/Tracks
There are 4 basic types of recruiters who work at finding and
interviewing candidates:
· Internal Recruiters
· Contract Recruiter
· Contingent Recruiters
· Retained Recruiters
As you begin to look for a job after graduating from RU you
will find yourself in contact with and working through one of
these types of recruiters in you search for employment.
1. Internal Company Staff Recruiters:
· HR Staff Jobs: Company Employees

· Paid a Salary + Bonus
· Can be Generalist or Specialists in the jobs they are assigned
to recruit for
· Strongly identify with company culture and “Good Fits”
· Performance is measured by employee success and “stick” rate
· Frequently assigned searches by function, or by business unit.
· While time is of the essence they are not focused on the
“cheapest” hire but the best
· Best type of recruiter for potential employees to work with..
they know the company , the business, the boss, the culture, the
expectations.. they want their hires to succeed so won’t sell you
on a job you are not right for and will not be successful in..
· When interviewing for a job at a college job fair it might be a
good idea to ask the person there doing the recruiting “ how
long have you worked for the company”..
2 . Contract Recruiters
· Not company employees/ Outsourced Contractor or working
for a
Sub- Contracting company
· Paid per hire: i.e. $5,000 per each college graduate hired
· Mostly “jack of all trades” will hire anyone for any job.
· No relationship to company culture.. only interested in you
accepting the job

· No relationship to your success or stick rate.. if you quit they
get paid for another search
· No reason or logic to their search assignments .. will do any
kind of job search for a fee. They may have no knowledge about
HR jobs but will hire for them
· Very focused on Time to Fill and Cost.. they get paid $5,000
per hire no matter if it takes them a few weeks or a few
months.. hence they are always in a hurry to fill a job not
looking for the best fit.
· They will not be able to tell you if you are “good fit” or know
anything about the Company, its culture, your potential boss or
even the job itself.
· They may be retained to hire 10 new college grads with
accounting degrees and are to be paid $5,000 for each one they
hire. .beyond that they know very little.. it’s just a numbers
game to them.
· Again I suggest you ask the person recruiting you how long
they have “worked “for the company.. these types of recruiters
can often times not be forthcoming not tell you they are a
contractor.. if they say they worked for the company for a few
years ask them what other work /jobs they have held beyond
recruiting.. watch out for the “ baffle them with BS” type..
3. Contingent Recuiters
· Individuals and Firms that take recruiting assignments and
only get paid if the company ends up hiring the candidate they
send.
· Contingent fees only paid if the person is hired are usually

about 20% of the persons first year total pay.. base plus bonus..
· Example; if a new college grad is paid $50k for their first year
of base and bonus then the firm will collect $10,000.
· Many of these firms are “Sketchy”.. may only be “websites” or
work only on line or phone .. never meet you
· They may cold call recent grads and say they have a job for
them.. if you say you may be interested they then cold call lots
of company’s and say “I’ve got a recent grad with an
Accounting Degree can you use him/her.”
· Many of these firms are nothing but “phone banks”.. their
employee are only paid on commission..
· You will quickly know if they are this type of firm.. get their
name and google them.. they are easy to spot.
· Be very cautious and careful about dealing with these types of
firms and sending them you resume.
· While some are legitimate I would urge caution!!.. they are
not to be trusted and can in fact affect your career negatively..
many companies do not want to work with them and would
prefer not hiring an employee who worked with them..
· Example: one of these companies cold calls you or you
respond to an on line post.. then they may, without you
knowledge send your name to a company you may want work
for.. so when you send your resume to that company they cannot
or will not consider hiring you because they will have to pay a
fee to that contingent firm..
4. Retained Recruiting Firms
· The best and most professional to work with.

· They will only recruit new college grads for specific targeted
jobs
· These firms specialize or have staff that specialize.
· Example: some firms or individuals focus on Accountants, or
HR or IT, or Sales and Marketing
· The have earned a reputation and want to do well.. they want
to hire you only if they think you will be successful and reflect
positively on them so they get repeat business
· They make a point of leaning all about the company, its
culture, your future boss and the work you will be doing.
· They are for the most part very good at what they do, very
reputable and expensive. They will charge 30% of your first
year total compensation upfront before they even begin to
recruit.
· From a perspective candidates point of view they can make
your career or stall it..
· They are very focused on personal and cultural fit with the
company.. from their standpoint it’s all about the “chemistry”
For Professor Shaukat: the following cases are for you to better
understand the question. Please make sure to use case #1 as
example to answer this question
All the following cases involved employees (who already joined
the union) get fired because they did something wrong. They
then come together with their unions and sue back the company.
So these cases basically are: the company (why the employee
should be fired) VS. the union (why the employee should not be
fired)

Please use Case 1 to answer the questions.
Case # 1
The company and union are now in the 4th year of a 5 year
labor contract.
When the contract was approved it contained the following
language:
“The company and the union support a zero tolerance policy
which is intended for the safety of all employees. Any
employee who is found to be impaired at work by their use of
substances such as alcohol or illegal drugs may be subject to
immediate termination”.
Yesterday an employee came to work viably impaired and when
confronted admitted he was “under the influence” of Medical
Marijuana that had been prescribed for him by his doctor. Such
legal prescriptions were not legally available or even
contemplated 5 years ago when the contract was negotiated .
The company nevertheless immediately fired this employee .
Case #2
A nurse at a Univ. Hospital was terminated for both
administering an incorrect drug to a patient and then changing
the patient’s records in the hospital system to “cover up” her
mistake.
Facts:
The Nurse has been employed for 27 year at the same hospital

and has an unblemished record.
The nurse’s actions were not uncovered for over a year when an
annual audit review turned up the record discrepancy.
Upon being confronted with her action the Nurse acknowledged
she made the mistake but as her error had no impact on the
patient’s health she decided to “ just fix it” and move on.
The Hospitals position is that her actions were extremely
serious, unethical at best and perhaps even illegal. Then her
“cover up” of her error made her actions intolerable and she was
terminated .
The union argues that the nurse made a mistake, she realized
her error when she came to work the next day, and in exercising
poor judgement decided to fix it herself which she did.
While showing very poor judgement, she should not be fired for
this first lapse in 27 years.
Case #3
The Union Contract states that every employee is entitled to 3
personal days off each year that they may use for whatever
reason.
Once an employee has used up those 3 days they must adhere to
the following attendance policy.
2 more absences in a calendar year and you receive a verbal
waring about you unacceptable attendance
2 more absences after that in a calendar you receive a written
warning that your attendance is unacceptable.
2 more absences after that in a calendar year and you get a 1

week suspension without pay as a final warning that any further
absences will result in termination.
Employee is absent again for the 10th time this year and is
terminated.
Employee who has been with the company for 5 years ( some
previous attendance problems in prior years but never this bad)
argues that his last absence should be excused. There was a
terrible snowstorm blizzard and the public schools were closed.
While businesses were open as well as mass transit and all the
highways the employee argues that he had no one to care of his
kids who were at home when the schools closed as his wife had
to go to work at the hospital where she works as nurse.
Case #4
A new employee is assigned a company desktop computer and
advised in writing regarding the company’s policy regarding
employee use of company computers.
The policy states that employees may use company computers
for personal use up to 4 hrs per month ( an application
monitors it’s use) Employees are told they should feel free to
check their personal emails , do some quick on line shopping on
their breaks, perhaps check sport scores or news etc.
The policy also contains a very strong warning and prohibition
that employees may not use company equipment to access any
inappropriate sites such as sports betting, adult sites, even
dating sites etc .. The policy clearly states that the company
reserves the right and will monitor employee on line activities.
There is also a very strong warning to employees advising them
that they are not to open or download any Links or
Applications that have not been cleared for security purposes..
especially if a you get a pop up screen notice that the site you
are going to is not protected or secure . Violations of this
policy which is strictly monitored may result in immediate

termination .
This employee, on a coffee break, checks his personal email and
opens a note from a friend he knows. This friend invites him to
check out a video and offered him a link to it. When clicks on
the link to open it he gets a warning pop up message on his
screen telling him the link may be compromised and unsafe and
not to open it. He ignores the warning and does so any.
The link ends up being a virus that not only attaches itself his
desktop but to everyone else he send emails to.. eventually that
virus crashes the entire company network .
The company’s internet security consultants are able to track
that virus directly to this employees actions. The employee is
therefore immediately terminated..
Setting the Record Straight
Page 1 of 4
Last week Governor Rauner sent a letter to state employees that
was rife with half-truths and
outright falsehoods. You can fact-check his statements below:
Rauner: Those negotiations have been robust…totaling over
300 different proposals.
FACT: It may be accurate to say that there were over 300
“different” proposals (depending on

exactly how you count; our count is a little less). But here’s
what the governor doesn’t say:
Some 200 of those proposals came from the Rauner
Administration, while only 65 came from
the Union—and the overwhelming bulk of the Administration’s
proposals were directed at
wiping out vital job rights in the current contract.
Rauner: Nor could any employer, public or private, afford to
continue our current practice of
providing the platinum health plans at the price of silver plans.
FACT: The governor’s not really correct in his use of
‘platinum’ and ‘silver’ here. But leave that
aside—the more basic point is that in fact there are plenty of
other employers that are
continuing to offer plans comparable to what the State of
Illinois currently provides. Illinois is
currently in the mid-ranks when it comes to the health coverage
states provide to their
employees. A number of other states actually provide BETTER
health care plans than Illinois—
as do many units of local government. The Administration’s
current proposal would move
Illinois down to the bottom ranks of state health plans.

Rauner: AFSCME…has simply misled its members…We are
not seeking to reduce any
employee’s salary…We are not seeking to freeze compensation.
FACT: All the information AFSCME has provided to members
is factual, not misleading. The
Union did not say the Administration’s proposals were to
‘reduce salary’, but rather that they
would result in lower income or take-home pay because of the
combination of wage/step
freeze and higher health insurance premiums that the
Administration is demanding. The Union
never said that the Administration was seeking to ‘freeze
compensation’, but rather to freeze
wages and steps—which they are!
Rauner: Tightening our belts now is also the responsible
approach…
FACT: Rauner talks about tightening “our” belts, but fails to
mention that he increased the
salaries of his top staff by 36% more than their predecessors
were paid.
Rauner: AFSCME also claims we are doubling health
insurance premiums. That’s misleading
at best. First off, we haven’t raised premiums at all this fiscal
year. For next year, we’ll offer

additional, less-costly plans…Only employees who choose the
state’s expensive, platinum
health plan [i.e. the current plan] will see twofold increases.
FACT: Again, AFSCME’s information has all been factual.
The governor makes a point of saying
‘we haven’t raised premiums at all this fiscal year’. But he
fails to mention that they had a
Page 2 of 4
proposal on the bargaining table for many months to do just
that—initially to raise them by
500%! In August they modified that proposal to be an increase
of 100%. It wasn’t until
December, when it became very clear they could not implement
massive health care changes in
the current fiscal year that they agreed to maintain the status
quo for this fiscal year. When
AFSCME has talked about the Administration’s plan to double
premiums, we’ve included the
fact that this increase would pertain only to those who want to

keep the health plan they have.
However, unlike the governor who only gives half the picture
when he says the Administration
will offer ‘less costly plans’ next year—we’ve also pointed out
that those plans with ‘less costly’
premiums he talks about will have much higher out-of-pocket
costs than the current plans.
Rauner: AFSCME…proposed a more expensive, luxury health
insurance plan at the same
employer subsidy.
FACT: AFSCME proposed continuing the current employee
health care plan. Does anyone
really believe it’s a “luxury” health plan? The Union did not
propose reducing a single employee
contribution for premiums, co-pays, etc—or propose that the
Employer pay a greater share of
the cost. The only changes the Union proposed were to the
Vision Plan (better benefit for
frames) and the Dental Plan (oral surgery to be covered under
medical and allow for adult
orthodontia coverage.) Subsequently, the Union modified its
proposal to include modest
increases in what employees pay toward premiums and
deductibles.

Rauner: AFSCME leadership told us they would never accept a
system of bonuses awarded to
employees for exceptional performance.
FACT: AFSCME argued that the 2% of payroll that the
Administration was prepared to spend on
employee compensation in the form of bonuses should be fairly
distributed to all employees,
rather than being restricted only to employees who meet some
as-yet-unidentified
“exceptional performance” criteria. We took this position
because the record demonstrates
that so-called “merit” pay quickly becomes corroded by
favoritism, cronyism, and politics.
Moreover the Union pointed out the difficulty of determining
what would constitute
‘exceptional performance’ for most state jobs, where employees
have to go the extra mile
every day just to get the job done. The Administration was
unable to give a single example of
what ‘exceptional performance’ might be for titles such as
Correctional Officer or Child
Protective Investigator, but made clear that the Employer would
solely determine the criteria

and employees who were passed over would have no appeal
rights.
Rauner: When we refused these proposals, they did not return
to the table but filed SB
1229…That move was…a terrible waste of critical bargaining
time…
FACT: It is a complete falsehood to say that AFSCME ‘did not
return to the table’ when SB 1229
was introduced. AFSCME has worked with all diligence with
the Administration’s
representatives to schedule as many bargaining dates as feasible
throughout the bargaining
Page 3 of 4
process. SB 1229 was introduced in the General Assembly in
late May and was in contention
until early September when the General Assembly failed to
override Rauner’s veto of this
legislation, which sought to provide an alternative path to a
contract settlement. During that
time frame, some 21 days of bargaining occurred. No time was

wasted. What was wasted—
because of the governor’s veto of this constructive legislation—
was an opportunity to resolve
outstanding contract disputes in a fair and rational manner.
Rauner: We made a number of key concessions…AFSCME, on
the other hand, continued to
demand across-the-board wage and step increases…They still
seek more expensive platinum
[health care] plans…
FACT: The Rauner Administration has never budged from Day
One on its demand for a four-
year wage and step freeze. AFSCME has modified our original
wage proposal—and withdrew a
proposal for a wage increase in the first year of the contract,
accepting (in modified form) the
Employer’s bonus proposal.
Rauner: Last Friday when negotiations broke down, the very
last words from AFSCME’s chief
negotiator were, “I have nothing else to say and am not
interested in hearing what you have
to say at this point—carry that message back to your
principals.”
FACT: Negotiations did not “break down” last Friday. The

Rauner Administration broke off
negotiations by declaring impasse at that time. The quote from
Roberta Lynch (chief
negotiator) above is typical of the way that the Administration
is putting forward either very
poorly taken, or doctored, bargaining notes. The statement
quoted actually came after the
Administration had declared impasse and the Union had stated
that the parties were not at
impasse. As cited it conveniently leaves out the message that
Roberta said should be taken
back, which was “The Union does not believe these negotiations
are at impasse and we’re
prepared to continue to bargain.” Or take another example that
the governor’s office put out
in the press—their notes purporting to show that Roberta said
‘people who came up with this
[merit pay] ought to go to…prison.’ What she actually said was
that it wasn’t fair to leave out
75% of employees from getting a bonus, given the difficult jobs
that employees do—and that
whoever came up with that idea should try going and actually
working in a prison so they’d
know how hard the job is.

Rauner: In the first year of the contract, they demanded a
$1000 pensionable
stipend…[which] would basically be the same thing as a 2%
wage increase.
FACT: The Administration proposed a $1000 bonus in the first
year of the contract, but they
wanted to deny it to employees who had to miss work due to
illness. The Union accepted the
proposal for a $1000 bonus, but rejected the limitation on who
could receive it. The Union also
said, because we doubted it would be constitutional to make the
bonus non- pensionable, we
Page 4 of 4
were proposing that it be pensionable. The Administration
never responded to the Union’s
counter proposal at all—offering no evidence that it would be
constitutional to make the bonus
non-pensionable nor providing any evidence that it equated to a
2% pay increase, a claim which

AFSCME’s research--and basic math--do not substantiate.
Rauner: [Referencing the tolling agreement:] It is the only
agreement, in fact, we could reach
in 12 months.
FACT: In fact, the parties have already reached agreement on
more than two dozen issues at
the bargaining table.
Rauner: The Labor Board is fair…We will respect the decision
of the Board…
FACT: Rauner appointed a majority of members of the Labor
Board. There have been few
disputes that have reached the Board since he took office, but in
a recent case regarding an
issue related to contract negotiations, the Board hastily rushed a
decision and completely
upheld the Administration’s position. Moreover, while Rauner
says he will respect the decision
of his Labor Board, he makes no mention of the Appellate Court
which has review of any Labor
Board decision and which is not appointed by him but elected
by the voters.
Rauner: AFSCME has no intention of ever reaching a deal at
the table.

FACT: AFSCME has done everything possible to reach a
settlement—and we’ve made very clear
that we’re prepared to continue to work to do so. Rather it is
the Rauner Administration –
beginning with their 200+ proposals to take away hard-won
rights and reduce employees’
standard of living—that has been bent on confrontation and
conflict from the outset.
Rauner: AFSCME could simply submit our proposed contract
to its members for a vote…Many
of the other 17 bargaining units ratified the materially same
agreement by over 80%.
FACT: AFSCME members are always the final decision-makers
in any contract negotiation.
When the AFSCME Bargaining Committee believes it has
reached the best possible tentative
agreement, it will bring that agreement to the members for a
vote. In the meantime, the
Union is in the process of scheduling meetings for all members
to discuss where we stand in
bargaining. However, it’s important to note that it is not at all
accurate to say that the other
bargaining units ratified the “materially same agreement” as is
being offered to AFSCME

members. The Teamsters’ agreements provide far more
generous health insurance terms—
while the ‘building trades’ agreements do not include a wage
freeze.
This news link and the pdf file are each the state’s words and
the union’s words, so they are all bias.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-rauner-
afscme-labor-board-met-20161115-story.html

HUMAN RESOURCES’ ROLE IN SUCCESSION PLANNING Succession planni.docx

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à HUMAN RESOURCES’ ROLE IN SUCCESSION PLANNING Succession planni.docx

Similaire à HUMAN RESOURCES’ ROLE IN SUCCESSION PLANNING Succession planni.docx (20)

Plus de wellesleyterresa

Plus de wellesleyterresa (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

HUMAN RESOURCES’ ROLE IN SUCCESSION PLANNING Succession planni.docx