Policy Search
EWU-406-01_Exempt-Employment_FirstRead
- Comment period ends November 30, 2024.
- Policy Proponent: Vice President for Business and Finance
- Modifies the amount of sick leave exempt employees receive to 8 hours per month
- Modifies the amount of vacation leave that can be transferred from another state agency to EWU or from EWU to another state agency consistent with recent changes in state law
- Clarifies the calculation of overtime
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?
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.
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.
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.
What is the rationale behind reducing sick leave from 10-12 hours to 8 hours? That is a significant difference.
Thanks!
Please provide the rationale for this proposal. Also, if successful, will this apply for both >2 and 2< years on the job exempt employees?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
I 100% agree with this comment! And frankly, I don’t know how the university even benefits financially by reducing our sick leave. They are either paying for us to be at work or paying us to be home sick – either way they are paying. A reduction in sick leave accrual honestly just means that I would be coming to work sick a lot more, which is not fair to my coworkers but it would be my reality.
If exempt employees are given the choice between continuing to accrue 10-12 hours of sick leave (8 hours compensable and 2-4 non compensable) I am certain that 100% of these employees would want to continue to accrue the 10-12 as opposed to 8. I cannot imagine a scenario in which a single employee would vote for less sick time, compensable or not. Punishing current employees by reducing sick time because employees who retired were “confused” is, frankly, absurd. Honestly, it is fairly insulting to our collective intelligence as well.
This proposed change is so disappointing, and I hope this it is ultimately disapproved. As an unrepresented employee group, these staff members don’t receive regular step increases, additional personal holidays, or any sort of protections. The few hours of additional sick leave is a fantastic tool and benefit to help attract and retain the highest quality employees. If the post-COVID experience has taught us anything, it’s that most people now appreciate and prioritize the flexibility that comes along with these few extra hours of sick leave accrual – if given a choice, most employees would choose this benefit over a pay increase or promotion. Personally, it has been a life saver for my family. The vast majority of my sick leave use is to care for my children, but the additional accrual affords me the opportunity to actually care for my own health and well-being as well. If this change is accepted, I will essentially be forced to reserve my sick leave for the care of dependents and just begin to come into the office when I’m sick, because I won’t have the balance to do both. I understand that’s a difficult decision a lot of people already have to make, but why force another group of hard working people make that choice as well, if we ultimately don’t have to do so. If the justification is that you’re trying to limit confusion for retiring employees, why don’t you just improve your communication with those individuals? That seems to me like the most obvious solution rather than punishing the many for the benefit of a few.
As a new employee who signed an Exempt Employment contract, it clearly states in the contract the sick leave accrual at 10 hours/month and after 2 years accrual at 12 hours/month. Nowhere does it state some of those hours are non-compensable as described by Annika in a comment left above. Nowhere was it stated or explained I could not transfer “some” hours to VEBA at retirement. Part of my decision to accept this position was even though the offered Vacation hours were less than I was accruing at my past institution, the sick leave accruing at 10 hours/month compensated for that reduced vacation leave accrual. I am learning now through a message board that I am not really getting those hours unless I get gravely ill and use up my “compensable” sick leave first? The statement that WA State allows 8 hours sick leave only is a minimum. The state just updated their transfer vacation hours to 280 as indicated in this policy as well, but that is a minimum. Many WA State Institutions exceed that number of transferrable vacation hours accepted. There are no state restrictions from exceeding the minimum set by Washington State. The Board should honor the existing contracts at the 10 hour or 12 hour/month rates presented upon hiring. If the Board chooses to reduce employee sick leave benefits, it will hurt recruitment and retention of employees.
If this proposal is approved, I will be in immediate job-search, as access to adequate sick-leave was one of the core reasons I applied to work at EWU in the first place.
To echo what many others have said, this move is the OPPOSITE of “investing in people and places.” We continue to lose faculty and staff, particularly people of color, due to subpar wages, lack of upward mobility and low morale due to increased workloads without appropriate compensation. Our candidate pools continue to be shrinking and lacking in strong candidates. The people I know who have left within the last 12 months have been offered 10-70k more, with even more competitive benefits, and only faculty are getting retention offers, even for employees who have been here for many years. In addition to blackout dates on using PTO, now sick leave will be reduced, and this is supposed to incentivize staff to remain at EWU?!
It’s clear that EWU is struggling as an institution on many fronts, and the long term sustainability of the most affordable and accessible public 4-year university in the state is now in question. The end of EWU would be devastating for our community, region, and state, but it’s now an all-to-real possibility, looming large.
However, the frantic, baffling, and completely un-strategic moves by leadership – like this bizarre choice, ostensibly explained away by state rules (questionable) and employee confusion (lazy and insulting)- are only hastening its demise.
What is the point of all that strategic planning if leadership (whose own sick leave accrual, which is already much more generous, is not being cut?) are going to bumble their way into a policy choice that will have a tremendous negative impact on employee morale, recruitment, and retention.
Do the folks making these decisions realize how vital this sick time is? That it’s one of the few remaining draws to EWU as an employer?
Do better, Eastern.
The reason I came to work here is because of the benefits package. My offer letter did not explain compensable and non-compensable sick leave, only that I would receive 10 hours and 12 hours of sick leave monthly. How can you reduce hours that were agreed upon in a binding offer letter? This is not saving the institution any money because if an employee doesn’t get to take the sick leave then they will most likely come to work, therefore they are being paid either way. Also if hours over 8 are not available upon retirement the university is not losing any money, so why take away this time? This institution has enough problems with retention and applicants as it is, this will only make things worse. I for one will be seeking other employment if this is approved
Annika, I would appreciate being pointed toward the specific WA State policies that indicate we are not allowed to accrue/ be paid for more than 8 hours of sick leave per month–in a policy that is differentiated from the attendance incentive program.
Per RCW 41.04.340, “No employee may receive compensation **under this section** for any portion of sick leave accumulated at a rate in excess of one day per month.” This pertains to the attendance incentive program that allows for employees to cash out unused sick leave from a prior year at a rate of no more than 8 hours (one day) per month worked.
I am **not** seeing a WAC or an RCW that indicates employees may not accrue, or may not use, more than 8 hours of compensable sick leave per month. In fact, based on WA state policies regarding paid sick leave it appears there is no cap or limit to the amount of paid sick leave that can be accrued in a year–only a cap on the amount of unused sick leave that can be cashed out.
This policy aims to significantly reduce the financial benefit of accrued sick leave in order to fix the issue of how much sick leave folks are trying to cash out as part of the incentive program. The incentive program policy has the 8 hour per month stipulation written into it. I argue that better communication to employees is the solution to any confusion about that–not a reduction in benefits. Changing EWU’s policy regarding sick leave accrual to reduce confusion when employees want to use the cash-out incentive seems ineffective and antithetical to the newly minted strategic plan that states the goal of “investing in our people and places.”
If, indeed, there is supposed to be a differentiation between compensable and non-compensable sick leave accrual (which, again, I can’t find policies that cap compensable at 8 hours per month), that should be clearly stated on the EWU Benefits website. Currently, it states that exempt employees will accrue 10-12 hours per month per eligibility standards, and makes not distinction between compensable and non-compensable. I argue that this highlights both a communication and a tracking issue. I have worked at EWU as an exempt employee for 9 years, and to date I have never seen an hour accrual of non-compensable sick leave in my leave balances. Maybe we could address that, first, before reducing the accrual in a revised policy?
I came to offer my feedback as PSE’s Legislative Officer, but Stefani Rossi and other commenters have already excellently articulated the core discrepancies with EWU’s justification. The position of the university on this is not, to my knowledge, supported by WAC, the rhetoric of slashing benefits due to “confusion” is fundamentally unsound, and the entire proposal is deeply out of alignment with the university’s strategic plan and values.
I look forward to ongoing and spirited public comment on this matter.
So, if I understand correctly–someone departing the university got mad because they didn’t understand the policy limitations on how much sick leave they could cash out, and the response of the university is proposing a 20%-33% cut to exempt staff sick leave?
It seems like the university is actively trying to not keep staff with these policy changes. There is all this talk about retention and investing in people, but then we get hit with negative changes like this. It really seems like the university cares more about investing in how much money it retains rather than how staff and students are retained. If EWU continues on this path of being purely business-focused and not people-focused, I don’t think we will make it as a university…
I was already looking for other jobs, but now I’m actively applying. I think EWU might need to look up the definition of retention again to make sure they know what that word means.
This policy proposal is deeply concerning. My benefits are a main reason I continue to stay at EWU. Salaries are nowhere near competitive enough to now also be decreasing the accrual of our sick time. This policy change is not at all staff focused nor will it help our already concerning retention rates.
Do better EWU.
I’m so glad EWU is finally going to cut our sick leave! As someone who always has at least three hours of sick leave each month, this will help me focus on what matters—coming to work to spread illness to my colleagues! Thanks, EWU, for putting staff first! I’m so impressed with the thoughtful manner in which we were notified of the change. And this will really help attract people to come work for us, and to stay here, even. I’m going to tell everyone I know that EWU cares about you, and they really show it! They even have a salary survey running right now from a very big company out of Chicago. And I’m sure everyone here really appreciates this very much needed change. I can’t tell you how many times I talk with my fellow worker about student centered items when the conversation naturally goes to our over-abundance of sick time. When you think about it, getting sick is such a rare occurrence anyways, so maybe ELT or whoever is in charge could look at cutting our sick time to maybe six, or four hours a month. I mean, getting paid to not work and take care of your mind and body is such a trivial matter. Good job EWU! Go Eags!
EWU Proposed Leave Accruals:
Sick Leave – 8 hours per month
Vacation Leave – 14.67 hours per month
(https://in.ewu.edu/policies/wp-content/uploads/sites/82/2024/10/EWU-406-01_Exempt-Employment_FirstRead.pdf)
CWU Leave Accruals:
Sick Leave – 8 hours per month
Vacation Leave – 16.67 hours per month
(https://www.cwu.edu/about/policies-procedures/policies-manual/6-0-exempt-employees/cwup-6-60.php#CWUP-6-60-010 )
WWU Leave Accruals:
Sick Leave – 8 hours per month
Vacation Leave – 16 hours per month
(https://hr.wwu.edu/accrued-leave)
WSU Leave Accruals:
Sick Leave – 8 hours per month
Vacation Leave – 16.67 hours per month
(https://hrs.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/APHandbook_FINAL_1.21.21.pdf)
Evergreen State College Leave Accruals:
Sick Leave – 8 hours per month
Vacation Leave – 16.67 hours per month
(https://www.evergreen.edu/humanresources/leave-and-holidays)
UW Leave Accruals:
Sick Leave – 8 hours per month
Vacation Leave – 10-17.34 hours per month based on contract and/or years of service
(https://hr.uw.edu/ops/holidays-time-off/vacation/)