Amendment S

[Zundfolge]

There's a thread on the pot amendment (I suspect most of us have our minds made up about it already) but the other two amendments most folk don't know anything about (me included).

Amendment S: Colorado State Personnel System


So what do y'all think?

Vote and discuss (I left the vote yes vs no on purpose, if you don't have an opinion then maybe the discussion will help).

[Teufelhund]

Here is the official amendment as proposed: http://voteyesons.com/amendment_s_official_language.pdf

[OneGuy67]

As a state employee, me and most of my coworkers support this. There needs to be some changes and this is a start. There are others, but one ant hill at a time.

[roberth]

As a state employee, me and most of my coworkers support this. There needs to be some changes and this is a start. There are others, but one ant hill at a time.

Amendment S sounds good to me off the start but I'll need to read it a couple more times.

Please tell me why you and your co-workers support it.

[Zundfolge]

At this point my gut reaction is to oppose this.

It's written in seriously deep and bee-ess sounding legalese which means they're trying too damn hard to hide its true purpose.

Add the way the supporters talk about it (all BS weasel words and platitudes and not a single, simple, straight forward description of what it actually does) and I smell something rotten.

[BPTactical]

Until you have been in the State Personnel system you don't realize what a mess it is.
It typically takes about two months from the time of interview to first day on job for a new employee.
As far as strengthening the qualifications for a position, I am all for it. You should see some of the clowns we have been stuck with.
Revamping the pay system is long overdue. While I am not a fan of mandatory raises every five years just because you put in the time (the way it used to be) the "Pay for Performance" system that replaced it is worse. The only ones who saw a "Performance" raise (2%) were the proverbial suck asses. Only X amount of $ were allocated for PfP and that meant only 20 out of 350 employees saw any additional salary increase. It also ruined good employees.
Example: I had a gent who worked for me who was an awesome guy and great worker, just went through a divorce and was a single dad. He really needed the extra cash.
The decision was made between my supervisor and myself we would work him into the "Peak Performer" category and get him his raise. We coached him through the year and he put in the extra effort and hours, truly a very deserving and peak worker.
I did a 3 page performance review and had him pegged for the raise.
Turned in all the paperwork only to have the superintendent tell me that as "X" was not going for promotion he was not going to get the raise. All of the PfP raises were going to those employees that were trying for promotions.
Now I had to tell this employee that he was not going to get his raise.
He felt totally used and betrayed, it took us a long time to get through to him it was not our call.
He refused to go that little extra mile from then on. Why should he?
The system ruined the man.
Employees should be rewarded for longevity as well but tying a performance element to it is not a bad thing as well.

The pay structure for State Employees has remained basically unchanged since 1973.
It's time.

[asmo]

The entire concept of preference points is morally and fiscally corrupt. Hire the best worker for the job - that's it. Anything else is just legalized prejudice. There is a reason why this crap isn't done in the real world.