Job Evaluation - Steel

8/8/2019 Job Evaluation - Steel

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-evaluation-steel 1/24

Job Evaluation US steel



Background

The USSC and other steel companies were

formed by mergers and therefore plants of

separate origins and different wage

backgrounds.

Constant technological change affecting

equipment ,materials , processes, products

and work assignments tended to aggravate

wage dislocations



Coexistence of hourly paid jobs and incentive

systems of endless variety. Due to wartime

production incentive workers faring better

than time workers.

Introduction of uniform work week lowered

take home pay of those in continuous

operations.



A wide variety of pay practices some no longer

in use had left their mark on rate structure.

THUS in short wage inequities



Speaking in 1947, R.Conrad Cooper, then assitant vice-president, Industrial Relations of the

United States Steel Corporation described the 1937 situation as follows:

Thus the principal ingredients of the wage ratesituation of ten years ago were; a body of specificrates emerging from different backgrounds invarious localities; a new union striving forposition; employees possessed of a new deviseby which to explore real or imaginary wage rategrievances; no fixed wage scales in agreements; aspecified right to challenge the equity of anyparticular rate; no agreed yardstick by which to

judge the equity of the rate ones challenged; andno terminal point for the settlement of suchdifferences.



In contrast to the usual approach to job evaluation,which tries to correct a wage structure through theapplication of a manual with preconceived weights,CWS technicians believed that designing a wage

structure was beyond the scope of job evaluation. Theypreferred to find and use the weights for various jobfactors, which have been developed in the steelindustry through the impact of the community labourmarket, the ups and downs of business cycles,

hundreds of thousands of individual judgements andindividual bargainging, as well as collectivebargaining.



Guess the categories ?



Four Basic Categories

Skill

Responsibility

Effort Working Conditions



Skill

Pre-employment training

Employment training and experience

Mental Skill

Manual Skill



Responsibility

Responsibility for Materials

Responsibility for tools and equipment

Responsibility for operations

Responsibility for safety of others



Eff or t

Mental Effort

Physical Effort



Working Conditions

Surroundings

Hazards



The scheme of development of the CWS plan dependedheavily upon the use of a selected group of jobs, whichwere classified concurrently with the development of theplan itself and served four purposes:

Their ranking helped to determine the number of factorlevels and the maximum level needed in each factor tocover the field.

Their classifications and rates were used to determine thefinal factor weight.

These jobs were designated benchmarks, an integral partof the plan to be used in classifying other jobs.

Benchmark jobs served to test the adequacy of the palnupon its completion.



Factor Comparison Method

This is a quantitative approach for job-

evaluation. It resembles the classification

method as levels or grades are used in both.

Five key-factor scales are used for analysis and

evaluating jobs. These factors are: (1) skill, (2)

mental effort, (3) physical effort, (4)

responsibility, and (5) working conditions. A composite score is obtained for all factors.

Following steps are followed in this method:



Step 1:

Select a number of key jobs (generally 15 to

25). Record wages of key jobs. Key-jobs areselected in such a way that these/are fairly

paid.



Step 2:

Analyze each key job for the five critical-

factors, namely: (1) mental requirement, (2)physical requirements, (3) skill requirements,

(4) working conditions, and (5) responsibility.



Step 3:

Rank each of the key-jobs within each factor.

The rank may vary between factors.



Step 4:

Assign wages according to each factor. It

should be in proportion to the requirement of each factor in the job.



Step 5:

Calculate total wage-rate for a job by adding

the wage-rate for each factor. This provides a job comparison scale. Insert key-jobs in it.



Step 6:

Evaluate the job under consideration using

factor-by-factor in relation to the key jobs on job comparison scale. Then evaluate and

compare each job with other jobs in terms of

each factor.



Advantages of Factor Comparison

Method

(i) It uses wages of the existing key jobs, which providestandard against which all other jobs are compared.

(ii) Direct comparison is used for determining wages.

(iii) A scale for comparing factor of new jobs is available in thismethod. This speeds up the evaluation for non-key or new jobs.

(iv) It is quantitative, yet relatively easy to apply once the factorand levels have been decided.



Disadvantages of Factor Comparison

Method

(i) It is costly and time-consuming to setup initially.

(ii) The initial set-up is to be changed every time thewage-structure changes.

(iii) If unfairly paid jobs are selected as key-jobs, thenthe entire scaling of factors gives wrong results.

(iv) Subjectivity in the grading is often challengeable.Different evaluator may give different wages for one factor.



Step 7:

Design, adjust and operate the wage-

structure.



Documents

Job Evaluation - Steel