Jackson Jambalaya

Perfectly logical and justified, and nothing worth stirring the pot over.

Stirrings of 'Animal Farm' come to mind when the head of a facility such as UMMC believe that some persons are 'more equal than others.'

... and nothing worth stirring the pot over.

So, in other words, the anonymous YOU who is nothing more than another anonymous NOBODY here doesn't want anyone discussing this nor sharing their opinion on the matter.

No 8:31, I believe he was just making a perfectly logical comment. UMC has made a management decision, and informed all of their employees about the decision and the basis for it. What in the hell could you even put into a pot to stir about this?

Thanks 7:42, a reasonable opinion. And yes, 8:21, in business some positions are more important, and worth more, than others.

(Damn KF the captcia is getting worse and worse trying to read. Three tries should be enough! You really need to do something about this.)

You don't get it January 31, 2013 at 9:05 AM ... and how do you know that January 31, 2013 at 7:42 AM is a he?

Agreed. Some employees are more equal than others. UMC doesn't have the resources (it appears) to make up for the tax increases for all of their employees. So they are doing it for their front line employees. I see no problem with this. And in fact, I think it's a smart strategic move to retain those employees that they are competing the most over?

Or more simply, whom does the market say is more valuable: a nurse or a secretary?

Why no thread on the JSU - Madison showdown?

One wonders if the higher level administrators and/or faculty salaries are going to be impacted by this.

The advertising budget for UMC seems to be doing quite well.

What does equality have to do with anything?

If you want special treatment (e.g. a raise when salaries are frozen), you need talent, a specialized skill, scarcity in your field, connections, or some combination thereof. If you don't like your station in life, get one of those listed above or pack it up and head to Cuba, North Korea, China, etc. Sorry, but breathing air isn't enough to qualify for a raise.

Perfectly sound, reasoned, business decision. Not sure why the name of the department originating the memo was redacted.

Has nothing to do with 'some being more equal than others'. Wages are typically based on competitive rates in the affected marketplace, not simply taking a mayonnaise knife and spreading a certain % across the entire workforce.

An employer has no obligation, moral or otherwise, to grant across-the-board increases, even when the money to do that is available and plentiful.

Salaries should be, and apparently are, based on Labor Area Wage and Benefits Surveys, competitive rates in the labor market area and retention strategies. Doing the panty-waste dance of 'we're not appreciated' and 'some are more equal than others' is counterproductive and irrational.

"UMC doesn't have the resources (it appears) to make up for the tax increases for all of their employees."

Well, it certainly has enough resources to build and build and build some more.

No, it sounds like a select group of employess got courted by another organization (see Brian Kelly, Les Miles) and came back to UMMC looking to "restructure" their contracts.

No, 9:12, I totally "get it". I realize that there are a number of people that will opine on anything and often when they know nothing about the subject but just want to bitch. You, by the way, seem to fit the bill.

And I have no idea whether 7:42 is a he or not - and frankly, I don't care. If anon at 7:42 is a she and is offended, that's. life. If it is a he and is offended, tough. If it is an it, then maybe the legislation dropped a couple of days ago insuring that there won't be any non-humans being given brains, then we can solve that problem if the legislation passes.

Get over it.

There are shortages in a few key positions, and not being able to keep those positions adequately staffed could affect patient safety, and therefore jeopardize UMMC's mission.

Translation: they will try to meet competing salary offers for a few people in those situations. Everybody else has to wait (usually UMMC employees wait until election year when all state employees get an across-the-board raise before the election).

The only people getting the raises will be those with another outside job offer.

The memo is kindly telling the rank and file to bend over.

@1:37- sounds like you have the answer. All you have to do is go get yourself another job offer and dangle it in your boss's face. If you are worth even your CURRENT salary, maybe he'll try to match the offer to keep you. The trick here is to make sure the alternative offer is better than what you have AND that you are a superior employee before giving your boss an ultimatum. Otherwise, you're likely to find yourself SOL.

Such is life in the real world...

UMC is a business. Why would people act shocked?? There are lots of comments here that suggest the "rank and file" deserve raises- what about the people that bring in the revenue like a normal business?? Those are the clinicians.

We should start a BLUE CROSS thread

1:27 made this remark: "UMMC employees wait until election year when all state employees get an across-the-board raise before the election".

TOTALLY without basis! All state employees have not received an across-the-board raise in the history of the State Personnel Board, election year or otherwise.

SF - I could show you the pay stubs but I think you are willfully delusional, living in your own alternate universe.

FWIW - several years ago I lost an employee who did have a higher salary offer elsewhere. UMMC's HR told me there is no mechanism available within UMMC to grant any discretionary raise to an individual employee, even under those circumstances (the employee did leave for more money). I was informed the only way to increase a salary was to 1) get promoted (wasn't an option in this case) or 2) wait until the legislature approved across the board salary increases (which they did the net election cycle - 2% for all employees).

Now, whose information should I believe - UMMC's HR department, or an anonymous internet pinhead?

Obviously you will believe whatever you find suits your purpose. If you have proof of any time in history when all state employees got an across the board increase, I'll meet you at KF's house and eat your propeller-beanie. And YOU propose to SHOW the paystubs to prove your nonsensical suggestion? What size shoebox do you have that will hold that many thousand pay stubs? Talk about alternate universes! Wait! Now I see! Some pinhead at UMMC told you he thought that was the case one year. Please allow me to defer.

I guess "Pay Stub Boy" at 8:06 is still scrounging through shoe boxes.

http://m.msnewsnow.com/autojuice?targetUrl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.msnewsnow.com%2fGlobal%2fstory.asp%3fS%3d4803144

Shadowfox -I guess "Pay Stub Boy" had to go to the bathroom or something. Never fear, though...here's your link. I'm confident you will quickly apologize to PSB for doubting him.

It's my understanding that the legislature has the ability to AUTHORIZE raises, not grant them. There is no date associated with the link 2:38 provided so research is not readily possible. The SPB sets, revises and manages the salary schedule, a table of rates and ranges. Some employees are always 'out of whack' in their range, some are always topped out and others are always beneath their grade. When an agency gives across the board increases to its COVERED employees, consideration is given to those three factors as well.

It's also true that some state employees are NOT subject to the range tables and would NOT receive increases. There are hundreds of State jobs that are not protected by SPB (will and pleasure of governor or boards) or subject to the range and rate tables. THOSE employees would not be affected by across the board increases within an agency.

The larger point here is that the poster was incorrect in suggesting that 'an election year' drives employee pay increases, regardless of what some lettuce-head in HR at the hospital suggests.

SF - let me explain "megalomania" - someone like you who expects me to hang around a troll-infested board and respond to each delusional personal attack on a Saturday within 2 1/2 hours - well, you obviously have a greatly inflated sense of self-worth.

First, 12 pay stubs a month X 10 years= 120 pay stubs, organized in envelopes (12 per year). 120 stubs is WWWAAYYY less then "thousands". If I can't find them (I would never bother to look just to respond to a troll like you) I could get copies from the accountant who handles my taxes.

Also, all UMMC personnel records such as pay stub histories are stored digitally. If I needed them (i.e., for tax purposes, or responding to someone who isn't a troll) I could retrieve them instantly. Someone who makes their living by 25 cent tips probably isn't familiar with such a system, but I digress.

Interesting fact: the only state employee whose contract can span more then one year is the head football coach at Ole Miss. Faculty with tenure essentially have a lifetime contract, but the state won't put that in a contract.

Thank you, 2-2 @2:38 for the documentation that I am correct in my recollection of these events. This has happened about three times in the last decade; IIRC I think one election cycle passed without such a raise. I notice the troll is pretending that link never existed (what's the online version of sticking fingers in ears and taunting 'nanny, nanny, boo-boo; I don't hear you'?).

Now, back to the thread the troll hijacked: these few raises apply to certain hospital personnel WITHOUT CONTRACTS (i.e., not physicians) whose work is essential to keep certain services available to the state, and who are subject to being lured away by other institutions offering higher pay. No one else is getting a raise.

Hark, the anonymous NOBODY speaks.

The definition of megalomania actually is a much better fit for February 3, 2013 at 10:14 AM than it is for Shadowfax.

Shadowfox, I'm beginning to think you are sometimes known as Milsaps. He's the only other person I've encountered who will scour a post for some tiny, irrelevant minutia to obsess over and argue about. The POINT is that there will be no pay raise for "rank & file" state employees (at UMMC or anywhere else) until the legislature votes to give them one. Does the legislature mandate that every single employee get exactly the same amount? I don't know but I would assume not. However, IN PRACTICE that's probably what happens. Sure, there are variations on the salaries for different people doing the same job, variations created through all sorts of things such as tenure, education, etc. But, when NOBODY has has a raise in five or six years and you've only been given 3% increase in your salary budget, not many department heads are going to spend their valuable time trying to parse that dribble into even tinier pieces.

Two of the last three posters are idiots. It's not obsession over irrelevant minutia to counter an idiot when he posts idiocy. And when he claims he can produce the pay stubs of all state employees to prove they have gotten simultaneous raises I'm surprised his idiot brain doesn't explode all over his terminal. His comment that state employees can expect raises during election years is only further evidence of his idiocy. And both of them are idiots for believing it takes an act of the legislature for an agency head to grant raises within his or her agency.

12:44, was right, however, when he said "I don't know". What the hell, then, is the point of pontificating about state employee raises? Millsaps my ass.

Shadowfox, you DO understand that all state agencies operate on money doled out to them by the state legislature, right???? So, would you like to explain to us where these various departments heads get the funds to just arbitrarily increase salaries whenever and to whomever they choose? Do they write the checks out of their personal accounts? Go borrow it from the bank on the corner? Or, do they just spend state money as they please in total disregard for any budget limitations that might have been imposed on them? Please don't delay your answer. I'm DYING to hear how they do this. See...I wasn't given nearly enough money in my budget this year to fund decent raises for my employees. I'm sincerely hoping you can enlighten me as to how one goes about granting raises when there is no money in the kitty.

One more thing, Shadowfox....here is the state statute that addresses salary increases for state employees. You might want to read it. Then again...you might not.

SEC. 25-3-40. Annual salary increases; intent to implement minimum wage and maximize salary increases.

10:18; my posts have all included the wording 'some' employees. Across the board increases are not discretionary and I haven't claimed them to be. You appear to be the one less informed than you claim to be and YOU suggest you're an agency head. Maybe you missed the seminar where the subject of funding was covered. At least one huge agency is 100% federally funded, utilizing no Mississippi taxpayer money for funding and not dependent on, as you claim, "money doled out to them by the legislature".

But, it appears you'd rather bitch over who gets a raise when than deal with the subject of the thread, which if you will read it, is UMMC deciding to grant increases to limited positions, not all, and NOT as approved by the legislature. If that's so damned impossible, what's the purpose of the initial post opening this thread? Now, get back to the business of keeping your nepotism under the radar.

Shadowfox - I have NOT suggested that I am a State of Mississippi department head. That's YOU reading what you want into my comments. However, I AM an department head of a PRIVATE company. Therefore, I am quite familiar with the concept of having to work within a budget and deal with the reality of "when the money is gone, it is gone". On the otherhand, I have the extreme luxury of being able to walk down the hall to my CEO to request an increase in my salary budget if I want to reward a particular person with a raise. Doesn't mean I'll get it. But I CAN ask. State department heads do NOT have that luxury. And just like me, that state deparment head has NO authority to spend money beyond what has been authorized in his budget. That means, UNLESS the legislature approves a budget increase, he can NOT increase salaries.

As for your focus on the word "some" employees Vs "all" employees...that's a perfect example of you obsessing over minutia. The poster was making a valid point that state departments do have neither the money nor the authority to give raises to "the rank and file" whenever the want. Such is possible ONLY when the legislature approves an increase in the budget for state employees salaries. It is TOTALLY irrelevent to his point whether one person here or there manages to get an increase in the interim...yet you ignored the intent of his comment and you ignored the reality of how state departments are funded to obesses over the fact that the most said "all" instead of 99.999%.

Now...I have better ways to spend my time than arguing with a wall.