The Policy program provides oversight and development of the following functions: recruiting; selection; employee development; employee relations, fair employment practices, compensation and benefits, classification, diversity and liability prevention.
The functions performed by this program affect the working life of all state employees in terms of salaries and working conditions.
During the 2015 General Session, the Legislature appropriated for Fiscal Year 2016, $821,300 from all sources for Policy. This is a 2.4 percent increase from Fiscal Year 2015 revised estimated amounts from all sources. The total includes $821,300 from the General/Education Funds, an increase of 2.4 percent from revised Fiscal Year 2015 estimates.
Benefits
Purpose/Definition | FY 2010 | FY 2011 | FY 2012 | FY 2013 | FY 2014 | FY 2015 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benefits Comparison to Market | State benefits compared to market | 19.5%1 | 19.5%1 | 19.0% | 19.0% | 27.6%2 | 27.6% |
# of Retirements Processed | Number of retirees processed | 528 | 506 | 479 | 474 | 515 | |
Increase/Decrease in Medical Premiums Per Year | % the State's medical insurance premiums have increased/decreased | 3.2%3 | 6.0%3 | -2.0% | 0.0% | 5.5% | 5.57% |
1 Survey source changed from Mercer to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. BLS is not our ideal source for benefits data, which is one reason why DHRM has contracted with the Hay Group beginning with FY 2012. 2 Some reasoning for the increase in benefits value as described by the HayGroup. "Although the State has made changes to its benefits program (elimination of PRM, increased employee health care cost sharing, the market has also made changes (pension reform, increase health care cost sharing and reduced PRM)." 3 In FY10, there was a 9.9% increase to medical insurance premiums but most was passed on to the employees. In FY11 there was a 12% total increase to Medical Premiums but the State only funded 6%. The remaining increase was passed to employees. |
Classification
Purpose/Definition | FY 2010 | FY 2011 | FY 2012 | FY 2013 | FY 2014 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
# of Employees Reclassified | # of employees whose jobs were reviewed and approved for a change in job title | 247 | 171 | 240 | 399 | 249 |
# of Classification Grievances | # of employees who filed a formal classification grievance | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
# of New Jobs | # of new job titles created minus # of job titles eliminated | 37 | 17 | -53 | 43 | 2 |
Compensation
Purpose/Definition | FY 2010 | FY 2011 | FY 2012 | FY 2013 | FY 2014 | FY 2015 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Wages Compared to Market | State of Utah employee salaries compared to similar positions in the market | -15.2% | -15.8% | -17.1% | -18.3% | -14.1% | -15.2% |
Salary Ranges Compared to Market | State of Utah salary ranges compared to similar positions in the market | -10.3% | -10.7% | -12.8% | -13.6% | -11.9% | -12.9% |
Total Compensation Compared to Market1 | State of Utah's total compensation package compared to market | N/A | N/A | -6.0% | -6.0% | -1.95%1 | -1.95%1 |
1 For total compensation information, DHRM uses the HayGroup every other year. The total compensation information is based on an employee average salary of 45K. |
COBI contains unaudited data as presented to the Legislature by state agencies at the time of publication. For audited financial data see the State of Utah's Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports.