Confusion at CUC

The story titled “CUC reclassifies Rota job vacancy announcements” is confusing and is triggering some thoughts among professionals in public personnel management circles that if the article says what it seems to be saying, then someone in CUC at the driver’s seat who is responsible for this matter misses all principles in human resources management dealing with recruitment and position classification actions.

I could sympathize with the recruitment difficulty of the subject position that CUC is having trouble with, but somehow the processes being implemented defies logical and systematic search for solutions to the issue being undertaken. Reclassifying a job vacancy announcement may have been construed as changing the job specification of the subject position under consideration. The absence of a complete job analysis to substantiate the justification for a change in the job specification would render the amendment to a job specification voidable because there exists no good reason and rationale to effectuate such changes in the position’s established and authorized definition for all legal purposes.

There may be a desire to hastily revise the position’s qualification standard, setting it to the bare minimum for the convenience of recruiting a person to fill the vacant job, but without such complete job analysis one would question what procedures CUC implements with this type of personnel action, including the sound science and common best practices in recruitment and position classification. Each position that CUC utilizes has its own distinct job content that would clearly define the job’s know-how, problem solving, and accountability. When the minimum qualification standard is poorly set and structured and is not commensurate with the job contents of the subject position, something is terribly wrong and out of order. As a ratepayer of CUC, I am concerned about this because the resulting mistake of setting the minimum qualification standard for this position as low as a high school diploma or GED equivalent doesn’t play well with logic and justified rationale. But this is not the more critical issue. You would have to consider the snowball effect this would have on authorized positions that CUC utilizes at present and in the future. Let the competent professional in CUC in charge of this matter prepare CUC in sustaining its action dealing with equal protection of the law for present and future employees that may be entitled to the same compensation level of $45,000-$65,000 annual salary.

Recruitment difficulty issues have specific human resources management approaches. CUC has not exhausted every best practices available that it could undertake to meet the federal stipulated order. Without the required job analysis and study to derive at revising the job specification of the Water Services Manager position, CUC is opening a can of worms and it is inviting current employees similarly situated to ask for the same compensation level and other form of compensation under the law. If the changes being undertaken is not justified, then the responsible professional in CUC should offer a satisfying and competent explanation. Nothing less and nothing more.