EWU Policy 406-01: Exempt Employment (Draft)

16 thoughts on “EWU Policy 406-01: Exempt Employment (Draft)”

1. I don’t understand, why would the university want to reduce sick time for their employees, I cannot imagine this helps with retention of staff. UNLESS, there are exempt employees who make less than 8 hours of sick time per month. Would staff who make more than 8 hours of sick time be forced to reduce the amount they accrue?

2. I cannot imagine, that reducing accrued sick time from 10-12 hours a month to 8 hours a month is in alignment with any staff retention goals.

3. Does the reduction of sick leave start with new employees or is it being taken away/reduced for current employees? When salaries are not competitive with the market and very minimal raises – benefits are about the only plus to remaining at EWU.

4. I am deeply saddened and disappointed that EWU is considering reducing the amount of sick leave that I receive. Beginning next year, I was scheduled to see an increase from 10 hours per month to 12 hours per month. I am now reading that EWU is attempting to change that to 8 hours per month. I do not understand why an institution that is struggling to retain staff already would approve a decision like this. I look forward to sharing my thoughts at the open public forum.

5. What is the rationale behind reducing sick leave from 10-12 hours to 8 hours? That is a significant difference.
   Thanks!

6. Please provide the rationale for this proposal. Also, if successful, will this apply for both >2 and 2< years on the job exempt employees?

7. Hello! As a classified employee, I currently accrue 8 hours of sick time per month, which is what this proposal suggest for exempt employees. As an employee with health conditions, it has been extremely difficult to save up sick time even after almost two years of employment. Despite prioritizing my attendance at work, if I were to contract COVID, or have another health emergency lasting more than a week, I would not have enough time to take paid leave. I am, therefore, against this policy for decreasing exempt employees’ sick time accrual. This change would particularly negatively impact exempt employees with disabilities. All EWU employees should have access to sufficient sick leave to feel secure in taking care of their health.

8. New sick leave reducation proposal:

   I’m not exempt staff, but I have seen first hand how poor are exempt candidate pools have been. Often our salaries are not competitive with the private sector. The saving grace, and what does ultimately bring in candidates, is the benefits package.

   This new sick leave policy proposal will only push current staff out who have been on the fence about leaving and will do nothing to bring in qualified candidates.

   When you start nick and diming benefits like this, it might feel like you are helping the bottom line. However, the costs to employee morale outstrip whatever gains you hope to make.

9. I do not understand how reducing benefits for employees would be the action of an institution who says they are dedicated to increasing staff retention. This seems to be the opposite of what is outlined in the strategic plan of “Investing in People and Places” which specifically focuses on retention of staff. I find it awful that this would even be suggested. People are already struggling in this economy and with low wages.

10. The State of Washington only allows 8 hours of sick leave to be compensable. Under the current version of the policy, exempt employees are accruing a combination of compensable sick leave (8 hours) and noncompensable sick leave (2-4 hours, depending on the length of service) because of the state limitations. For each employee, Payroll maintains records of the amount of compensable sick leave and noncompensable sick leave. When an exempt employee uses sick leave or donates sick leave, Payroll deducts the amount of sick leave used from the compensable account. Noncompensable sick leave is not used until the employee has extinguished their compensable sick leave. While the noncompensable sick leave can be used to cover an illness while employed, it cannot be cashed out into a VEBA upon retirement. This has caused confusion and frustration with employees upon retirement. EWU is trying to eliminate this confusion by reducing the accrual of sick leave to state limits so that all sick leave that is accrued will be compensable.

11. Please see the explanation provided to another poster about the rationale for this proposal. If approved, it would apply to all exempt employees who are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement (regardless of the length in service).

12. Dear BOT and ELT,
    I was concerned to see policy proposal EWU-406-01_Exempt-Employment_FirstRead reduced sick time accrual significantly, especially without talking to the PSE exempt employees union. Given that there are already issues with retention and many offices where staff are put under increasing stress with leadership transitions and unfilled positions, it does not seem wise to reduce sick time. Further, with a professed interest in wellness, it also does not seem in alignment with that goal. With just 8 hours a month, an employee can only take a handful of doctors appointments and a week or so of sick leave before running out. In my experience, employees rarely abuse usage of an abundance of sick leave, but it seems compassionate to leave these additional hours, especially for when employees run into particularly challenging personal or family issues. It also seems to me a cost effective way to provide compensation as it costs the university little to maintain the current amount of sick pay (as far as I can tell), when wages are already at an all time low. What I mean by that is, while I am making a decent amount of money ($57,000), it barely covers my regular monthly costs giving rising costs of housing, insurance, food, and more. In addition, when I’ve compared my starting salary as a first year teacher (with a Master’s degree) in Seattle Public Schools in 2007, which was $43,000, to how much that same amount is worth now, a quick internet assessment suggests that’s the equivalent to $63,000 now. While these numbers are imperfect, it’s painful to know that after additional degrees and lots of hard work, I’m actually make less, comparatively, now, than I was 15 years ago. In that context, which I know I’m not alone in facing, it seems short-sighted and unnecessarily biting, to reduce sick hours. It also seems to participate in a model of top-down leadership and decision making, instead of collaborating with the union and even impacted non-unionized employees. Further, the coming year is a negotiating year with the PSE union, so it seems preemptive and a waste of time for you to make this policy now, without waiting for or engaging the union in a conversation. Finally, if you are worried about paying sick-time compensation when employees leave, you might consider capping that amount instead of going about limiting the monthly accrual. If retaining employees and employee wellness continues to be a genuine goal, then I recommend not approving this policy and instead maintaining sick hours and negotiating with employees in good faith to come up with a collaborative solution to any seen problems related to sick leave.

13. If approved, the change would apply to all exempt employees who are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement starting January 1st. It would only impact the accrual of sick leave moving forward. It would not apply to sick leave that has already been accrued.

14. It may only apply to non-represented but getting the university to bargain sick time beyond what the current policy states when the CBA expires next year would be incredibly difficult as they would likely state that they couldn’t afford to, just like they say they can’t afford to give people the raises they deserve and fail to fill open positions or eliminate positions because they think we should just do more with less. Also, if we have both compensable and non-compensable sick leave why is this not reflected in our EagleNET accounts? And reducing our sick time to make it all compensable? You would be taking away the time that could be cashed out at retirement, but we could still use that if needed for illness, appointments, etc. now. Most people won’t retire from here anyway.

15. While it sounds good that it doesn’t apply to those with a CBA (only PSE in this case as this is the only exempt union represented group) their contract expires in June. Which means that they would have to bargain for their sick time benefits beyond what the policy would be which may or may not be successful. So acting as if this doesn’t impact those covered by a CBA is silly.

16. Employee confusion, if that’s the true reason behind the suggested change of dropping to 8 hours, can be resolved in a multitude of ways, such as: delineating type of sick leave on pay stubs and in eaglenet/employee dashboard, or, if this isn’t possible, informing staff of their sick leave differentiation through a yearly or quarterly letter; providing employees with clear information on this policy by HR (through verbal and written communication) upon hire; as well as yearly reminders of the practice as well as how they can go about finding out how much compensated and non-compensated sick time they have accrued. Worst case scenario, a completely separate ledger could be used to determine accrued non-compensated sick time, communicated annually, or a similar practice. Employee confusion is not an adequate reason to reduce sick time accrual. If the true reason the university wants to change the policy is for financial reasons, I think they should be transparent about it and consider whether such a change aligns with the professed commitments to employee retention and well-being.