The state legislature merit program is an effective approach to allocating awards; this means that the terms of allocating the awards should be specific when outlining the criteria for those who qualify for the merit award program. Leaving this decision to the managers is likely to cause significant problems regarding the distribution of the merit increase.
A better structuring of the program could be achieved by combining the merit increase awards with the 3 percent across-the-board raise for all the state employees. This eliminates potential problems associated with judgments on the distribution of the program (Kearney and Carnevale 56). The program should ensure that there is a uniform merit increase for all the employees basing on their performance.
There are a number of issues raised by the merit pay system that require implementation. The first notable issue is adopting a merit pay system that is based on the principle of fairness to ensure that no particular group feels that it has been undermined.
The second issue raised by the merit pay system is the methodology that can be used in assessment of the performance. The challenge is assessing the performance of senior wardens who have served for a long time, and recently hired guards who are yet to serve. It is important also acknowledge that one size does not fit all (Kearney and Carnevale 65).
Developing a plan for the merit pay system requires taking into consideration both the viewpoints of the conflicting sides. This implies that the merit pay system should take into consideration both the concept of performance appraisal and the fact that all the guards are competent and need a merit award for their service.
Basing on this, a performance evaluation system will be established prior to the implementation of the merit based systems. This means the distribution of the merit based pay awards will base on the outcomes of the performance evaluations. This guarantees fairness during distribution basing on their performance.
The reaction of the union is mainly because it is of the opinion that its employees failed to undertake their duties that they are paid to accomplish. It is the role of the union to ensure that employees assume their responsibilities as stated under their pay requirements.
Failure to do so raises questions; this could be the possible justification of the union’s action. In addition, the union action is justified because they were not informed that the students were doing the work that their employees are supposed to do.
The termination of the bargaining unit members because of budget cuts was not of importance in this case. This implies that the municipal union should investigate the circumstances leading up to the action prior to the implementation of any action such as the laying off the workers (Kearney and Carnevale 63).
The decisions undertaken by labor unions usually have an impact on the daily lives of the citizens; this is mainly because of their disruptive nature. For instance, unions impose strikes and boycotts, which are likely to impose significant effects on the delivery of public services. In this particular case, the union argued for accountability, which resulted to questioning their motives by the public regarding their role.
In the capacity of the union president, addressing the conflict requires the reinforcement of accountability among the union employees to undertake their union work. Failing to perform the union work in future will result to punishments such as being laid off.
This guarantees that the park is attended at all times without any concerns that the students will abandon cleaning up the park. In either case, the school should seal an agreement that gives the voluntary responsibility of attending to the park, which will be followed by laying-off the union workers for budgets cuts (Kearney and Carnevale 61).
Works Cited
Kearney, Richard and David Carnevale. Labor Relations in the Public Sector. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2001.