Alaska Public Employees Association

Alaska Public Employees Association/AFT Web Site

Supervisory Unit 2007 Negotiating Survey Results

6. What is your opinion about the Murkowski administrations use of “Market Based Pay” studies which increase pay for certain job classifications based on “market conditions” , rather than across the board wage increases?
#	Response

1	It's been need to get the jobs filled.
2	Idiotic
3	not familiar with the topic
4	I think it is unfair as not all the job classes get the attention even though many are no longer competitive.
5	Works for me, people with my same job in industry double my pay and benefits are about the same.
6	we should be paid for the duties we perform
7	Doesn't acknowledge that there IS an across the board problem. Also, it tends to be arbritray in it's application. I think the State employment salary should be market based and be flexible enough to follow the same salary rule that the private sector and the federal government uses.
8	No opinion.
9	I support market based pay studies to increase certain job classifications. Not all job classes require higher pay rates to assist with recruitment or retainment. Across the board wage increases would dilute the purpose of the pay increase to target spedific job classes by decreasing the State's ability to meet the additional costs. Justification for pay increases to keep up with cost of living increases and inflation is a separate issue compared to adjusting pay rate to make the State marketable in certain job classes. APEA would injure the State's ability to adjust pay to market conditions if we use the Market Based Pay issue as leverage for across the board increases.
10	I don't know about that specifically, but I believe there are often discrepencies in pay. I do a lot more work than many other range 14 positions, especially those that aren't supervisors. The extra $15 per paycheck certainly isn't worth the extra headaches and responsibilities.
11	It is unfair as I am a supervisor that is a range 18 while all other supervisors are range 19's to 21's. UNFAIR Lack of promotion opportunities for myself based on job classification. I have hit my glass ceiling.
12	If one arena of state employees gets a pay raise, then all state employees should get the same percent of pay raise. Make it fair and even for everyone, not just a few select individuals or job classifications. It makes those who don't get a raise feel like their jobs are not important enough to warrant a pay raise.
13	Good for some, unfair and poor for others.
14	Creates dissatisfaction among employees
15	Not a good situation
16	Don't know anything about it, but "sounds" good!
17	I would like more information on it.
18	I am not sure how the "Market Based Pay" studies work, but I do know that as a State worker I make less than I would if I worked in the private sector. I also believe that everyone should get pay increases for inflation increases every year.
19	Not Fair, hate it.
20	Makes sense if implemented without bias.
21	I think this is good for personal industry or set up of a new classification. I think using this determination on government positions already in place is unfair.
22	Don't Agree
23	I am not familiar with this.
24	It did not work, especially for Analyst/Programmers.
25	just an excuse to keep salaries low!
26	no opinion
27	Not good....
28	I disagreed with just about everything he did (as it appears the new administration does as well). Hope she puts her words to work in terms of state employees.
29	It doesn't do enough.
30	I actually agree with the approach. If the state wants to attract and retain skilled professionals this will have to happen. That does not mean others should not get reasonable cost of living adjustments as negotiated by contract.
31	unacceptable
32	The market will always dictate pay. If State emp. can make more in the private sector the State will face retention problems.
33	need to do across the board. moral is low as it has ever been
34	Unfair and bias
35	I have no opinion actually.
36	My opinion is not favorable. Market Based Pay studies seems to be favorable only if upper management were pushed and encouraged by their department to look into the study to attract new hire's in their department.
37	I believe that there are certain job classifications that make substantially less than the private industry and should be considered first. I also believe that there are job classifications (like the directors and the auditors) that were well compensated and should have been further down on the study list.
38	The concept seems fair to me. As long as the studies are done transparently and the union has access to the raw data, I have no problem with them.
39	I don't know enough about it to comment.
40	I received that benefit so I' won't comment
41	Well in the biological field we are far below the Federal pay scale plus they get an extra 25% that is tax free so we need to do something soon to correct this problem.
42	I don't know enough to comment on this yet.
43	This method creates disparity. If you are going to fairly examine wages, one must look at the big picture and then move downward to the detailed positions. You also have to compare apples to apples --using a wage study from another dissimilar state to support not addressing wages in Alaska is not appropriate unless you adjust for the differences in the systems.
44	I think a market based pay is acceptable if done objectivly and for all job classes. An uniform increase is not expected as different job classes are in more demand and should be paid accordingly.
45	Seems like a good approach in concept but I have not looked into it enough to have an opinion.
46	Murkowski at best was inept!
47	We are a small work group trying to deal with escalating costs everywhere and most likely the largest employer in Alaska. (David and Goliath). I think in most cases, "Market Conditions" would also warrant an increase in salary. Just compare ours with those down south and add a cost of living allowance for living in Juneau (Juneau Factor)!
48	It makes more sense to compare our wage increases with those of inflation- rather than trying to compare similar jobs in different areas.
49	I prefer across the board salary increases.
50	Market Based Pay is appropriate.......across the board increases is an easy way out.
51	It's unfair
52	I think it is horrible... doesn't give credit to a lot of hard working supervisors that really deserve it.
53	It accomplished getting a living wage for nurses but did not gain equity for supervisory nurses compared with lower 48. I think all state workers, except legislators, are underpaid.
54	Thank goodness we're done with Murkowski! I notice that he only did them for Commissioners though, and a few retired Judges! Only the well off got more well off. The remainder of the State Workforce has still been held back financially.
55	it sucks
56	It's pretty low, trying to get around a more expensive, yet proper way to deal with the huge salary problem we have on our hands.
57	Not a good system. It appears that salary increases are not well coordinated. The recent range increase in the engineering career field is an example. Agree with your concept. Why not acrosss the board for professional supervisors?
58	In theory it sounds good, but many state jobs don't have private sector equivalents.
59	Only a very few specialized SU jobs should be under market based pay. The large majority of SU employees are not in this category. I think the compensation system should consider both categories of employees.
60	This is Alaska - stats show across the board increases are needed.
61	Pay increases should be accross the board!
62	Inflation and cost of living is increasing for everyone, not just for those in job classifications that are based on market conditions.
63	All of the Murky adminstrations need to go!
64	Each and every job class pay should be based on their respective "Market Based Pay" value. These values should be reviewed at regular intervals - say every 5 years, unless the market warrants otherwise. During the non-review/change years, I believe the across the board wage increases should be based off of the CPI. If wages go up or down dramatically, I would understand the need to taper the increases or decreases over time.
65	These were poorly done. He should have used salaries of our contractors, the federal wages for Alaska and other studies. They were biased and unfair to Alaskan State workers. Instead they based it on questionaries of which they recieved few responses, and there was no reason for these to be answered truthfully.
66	No opinion
67	I am not familar with the study, where can I access it?
68	I don't think this is fair.
69	Not familiar with. Probably unfair though if it was based on areas that were not comparable to where we live.
70	Market based pay is a free-enterprise pay system not necessary in Alaska State Government jobs. Such a system would create a multi-level pay system that would be difficult to administer. Would create competition among peers within the same salary range across the state.
71	Both the State and the unions (apea and asea) have failed to work towards adequate pay. This is not just a problem with the last administration.
72	I don't think it is very fair because not all jobs have a parallel in the private or other government sector to make comparisons with.
73	Unknown
74	Needs change
75	Do not agree with this. Who will determine the market conditions? This becomes political and it will depend on who is determining the market condition.
76	Rewarded self-serving employees rather than the employees who are working FOR the State, instead of merely WORKING the State for as much as they can personally get.
77	Market Based pay should be applied to ALL job classifications not just selected job classifications
78	It was dumb
79	That would be great for me if they based it upon my specific JOB DUTIES and not my job classification since my counter parts in the Oil and Gas business make two or three times my salary for the same performance of like duties. This needs to be thrown out because job classes are generic and do not necessarily reflect private industry nor are the private industry jobs necessarily market based either for most of the job duties actually performed under state job classifications. Do not even bargin this up unless the State is willing to look at each position in a job class and compare that position with Market Base Pay. The State will probably find that their pay scale is far behing the real world, especially in the Oil and Gas area, engineering, surveying, and other specific job duties.
80	Murkowski did nothing in the best interest of my department.
81	It is not fair to many of us who are not in what is considered hard to hire positions. We are not getting good raises and health insurance is going up. The pay raises do not keep up.
82	Have not studied yet
83	Certain job classifications lend themselves to the "supply and demand" scenario and will command higher wages.
84	Market based is fair and reasonable. But also need cost-of-living wage increase for all employees.
85	I do not feel it is fair.
86	At least it is something....more than my Union has done. It has created problems among the workforce though--rendering some job classes to feel a bit less worthy.
87	It has led to the unfair situation of different pay for comparable work. For example a Mining Engineering Associate is a R-19, while an Engineering Associate is a R-21, and an Environmental Engineering Associate I is also a R-21. It is also not fair when "Classification Studies" do not compare job classes to similar jods in industry or even similar jobs in the federal system.
88	It is just like everything else the prick did. It should be eliminated just like he was.
89	Unfair, raises should be across the board for all state empolyees.
90	Markets conditions may not give a true picture of what people are being paid and it would be hard to find a reference position to compare for my position. May work for engineers but not for every position
91	If they did a market survey per job class, they'd find most state workers under paid. Note our difficulty in recruitments. Based on Market conditions has some merit but cannot be applied across the board.
92	Some of it has to happen and the world and jobs change. I think that both should happen, some jobs need upgrading, but all need a raise.
93	Very responsive way to keep salaries fair. Consistent with the private sector. But no substitute for having a pension plan offered to new employees.
94	Not familar withthe Market Based Pay studies.
95	If I had wanted to be paid for the number of "widgets" I produced I wouldn't be working for the state. I provide a service to the state that should be recognized and compensated.
96	You get what you pay for....
97	it works for me.
98	Can accept it as long as it is enforced consistently 100 % for all job classifications.
99	I believe it was inappropriate.
100	Across the board raises would be nice but the bottom line is that certain technical positions are harder to fill and must be paid closer to market than other positions in order to attract anyone qualified. For my division, there is no one qualified in the state of Alaska who will work for us. We advertised all over the country over the last few months for numerous positions in different technical areas, received a few responses and were able to hire a couple of people.
101	This has created a tough work environment. An across the board increase would have it more inviting for getting or retaining employees in classifications that did not get a pay increase.
102	I view the effort to evaluate salary parity based on market conditions as a means to deflect the state employees perspective from the "real" economic realities of salary erosion due to inflation and burgeoning health care costs and instead focus upon a more narrow and devisive perspective that would pit individual employees against one another; i.e. salary "winners" vs "losers". When, in reality, all state employees have been salary "losers" for too long.
103	F***ER
104	Saleries need to be based on fair market based pay to recruit qualified personell.
105	I think both approaches should be looked at.
106	It is a start, however everyone is not included that should be within a job class. It does not ensure fair and equitable treatment
107	There is merit in this for Fishery Biologists and other in-demand job classes. It does leave the rest underpaid, though
108	Doesn't pertain to many positions. It is very unfair.
109	poor idea.
110	Not enough knowledge on this subject to comment.
111	For Nurses, it appears to be good. However, the market surveys do not look at Federal benefits or cost of living increase they get verse what the State employees of comparitive work recieve. We should compete and take in the CPI as compared to other locations.
112	I don't believe his approach was fair/equitable to all job classes.
113	WE ALL DESERVE A RAISE!
114	They circumvented the negotiation process; it is up to us to get that railroad back on the track.
115	undecided
116	I think wages should be increased across the board
117	We need wage increases accross the board.
118	It hasn't really worked out that well for us! :-)
119	It has some positives in theory, but my opinion is that it is carried out very arbitrarily, and discriminatory. Why should engineers get a pay raise and biologists none?. The engineers were already scaled higher to begin with.
120	Murkowski showed a bias towards making a preferred arrangement rather that a fair and unbiased arrangement.
121	I think market based studies and adjustments are valid if applied across the board to all job classes.
122	It really stinks!!!!!!!!
123	no opinion
124	Don't know enough about that to comment.
125	Looking forward to having the new governor review this and possibly make some improvements.
126	I think it is WRONG !!!
127	I think it is unfair
128	Sheer greed, avaris, arrogance & contempt
129	This is very unfair; it drives me crazy. In my department the nurses continue to get raises for this. I have a PhD and 10 years experience, and am stuck at a range 20! Unlike the nurses and doctors, I am not compensated for my advanced degree, which is essential for my job function.
130	Mixed - all positions need pay raises across the board but there are also some positions that need adjustments in their range through a classification study.
131	Don't agree with Market Based Pay unless you are going to do it on all job classes. Some job classes (Engineers) have had three such increases while many other job classes have not even been studied.
132	Very subjective and good public policy.
133	Excellent. The fairest and best way I have seen yet to get anyone a raise. Our wages should be comparable to private sector.
134	He is gone!
135	IT HAS CONTINUED TO SPLICE AND DICE THE OVERALL SUPPORT OF BARGAINING UNITS AND CREATE ADDITIONAL "TIERS" OF COMPENSATION, WHICH UNDERCUT ANY CHANCE OF SOLIDARITY BETWEEN MEMBERS.
136	It doesn't seem to be working very well for Fish and Game since biologists have not received any adjustments despite being paid nearly 50% less than similar federal positions. Federal position also receive bonuses in the way of money and time off.
137	I don't know enough about the market based pay studies. However, there is probably room for both types of pay increases.
138	For starters, pay should be coupled to inflation at least. Similar pay for similar work adjustments as well.
139	Murkowski's policies were terrible!
140	I don't know enough about that to answer
141	The concept sounds reasonable, but I don't known whether the work involved will allow the administration to adequately study needed job classes in a timely manner.
142	Murkowski was not who I voted for.
143	OK but they never got to adjusting my Job Class
144	I think it should be across the board we are all underpaid.
145	It sucks to be me.
146	It is a helpful tool to address industry wage increases in specific fields. But there also needs to be across the board wage increases to address the ever increasing cost of living.
147	It sounds good on paper but I'm not familiar enough with it to endorse it one way or the other. My primary concern is who sets the market conditions for which to make the comparisons?
148	Let's the rich keep getting richer--so does that mean there would be a pay decrease after the market is saturated? I think not----get real.
149	It was wrong then and is wrong now. Every supervisor needs a pay increase to retain the best, regardless of occupation.
150	Not fair
151	No opinion....sorry
152	If administered fairly, ok.
153	I dislike this approach. In my opinion a geographic cost of living assessment with modified salaries tied to those findings (across the board) makes much better sense.
154	unfair
155	Thought it was a fair way to make the pay match the current market value for the work being done.
156	I find them suspect. Departments with exceedingly difficult recruitment challenges know that there is more competition out there for some jobs than the current structure acknowledges, in terms of compensation.
157	question is not clear
158	Even with the recent "Market Based Pay" State of AK salary ranges are not competitive to some private employers.
159	Everything that Murkowski did was to his own benefit. Not to the employees of this state.
160	I think we should work for across the board wage increases
161	It's unfair
162	Both need to occur. There are some jobs that are underpaid and the majority do need a wage increase.
163	The most recent survey was bogus and will not accomplish its goal of hiring qualified engineers.
164	It's great if your in the right job class, but hurts those in the lower job classes.
165	In most cases I suspect it has resulted in salary increases.
166	It is at least a start but the entire salary schedule needs increased badly. the cost of living increases are the same for everyone, not just the chosed few categories being studied.
167	It stunk
168	I can't comment on the MBP studies, because I have not read them. In concept, market-based and across the board increases, both have merit. I believe they are complementary.
169	Classification section is rigged; personnel in that department are arrogant and bias, under pressure to suppress any range changes. Surveys are deliberate in size and geographic location for a desired out come.
170	I was unaware that the administration did that. If they had I think many of the clasifications would get increases and others would not which is OK as far as I'm concerned. I don't have a problem with market forces driving the pay scale.
171	Nice for some not for all. Divides workers weakens our bargaining power.
172	I know nothing of it.
173	I think they did some good, but they are only the tip of the iceberg and should have percipiciated wage increases for all employees.
174	I have a big problem with continued increases for certain job classes (ex: nurses) who may perform similar or less responsible jobs than other professionals, yet have salary increases granted frequently. I do not believe in across the board wage increases - I am in favor of performance-based advancement and adequate classification systems. There are many models from other states and federal agencies for adequate classification systems. The state, for example is sorely in need of a public health scientist classification that requires and recognizes specialized training and skills.
175	I think it was biased, created divisions within workforce - and the increase for appointed positions created problems for them and us! Some job classes don't lend themselves to "market conditions" - they refused to consider forestry and wildland firefighters as comparable to same positions with feds (much higher wages). And there isn't in-state comps for private sector. Biased. The amount we pay entry level admin clerks is extremely low - most take it for the benefits.
176	Not a bad concept, as long as they are comparing similar markets that take cost of living into account. E.g., I wouldn't want my fishery biologist salary compared to that of a biologist in Mississippi.
177	Does not fairly compensate people for work performed.
178	All positions need to keep up with inflation. However, in my own field failure to keep up with inflation and competitive pay for other regions (taking into account local cost of living) has led to the inability to fill positions.
179	Unfair
180	I haven't thought a great deal about it but it seems a convienient way for the administration to not addrss the larger issue.
181	Uncertain about the Murkowski "Market Based Pay" study; however, ACOA negotiated and won an 11% increase in CO pay for the Seward area. My husband is a COIII with a GED who grosses over $500.00 per pay check more than I do, a COIV with a Master's Degree.
182	If Market Based Pay studies are going to be used they should be used to evaluate and adjust all job classifications not just certain jobs.
183	Market based pay studies could work, as none of the SOA positions are competitive to the private sector.
184	I believe all state employees should be give a wage increase, not just a select few.
185	BOTH are absolutely necessary. Across the board increases address the increasing cost of living as well as a small 'reward' for tenure. Market Based Pay helps to ensure that the state is able to attract qualified candidates and also not losing staff to higher paying private industry or federal jobs.
186	Should be across the board.
187	Might help to recruit more individuals who are skilled in their profession.
188	Some jobs are harder to fill than others.
189	Needed for this job market.
190	I don't like it
191	It probably served its purpose, slowing down the brain drain.... However, too few classifications were included. No raise for transportation mgrs!
192	It did not take into account the cost of living increases that EVERYONE endures!
193	I agree.
194	Totally agree with letting market conditions set pay.
195	Shows that pay hsa been substandars
196	The practice is unfair as everyone is in the same position regarding cost of living increases vs. status quo pay scales.
197	Absurd
198	The same principle applies - pay should be based upon comparable salary schedules elsewhere, whether this position is an engineer or a clerk typist. Expand this program to all state positions.
199	I do not think it dealt with the fact that many jobs are not nearly as easy as they appear on WPA.
200	Don't like it. On the job experience should count for more.
201	I agree, so long as the appropriate market that is choosen for the study.
202	If the state is going to group a variety of jobs in the same classification, then the State believes that those jobs have equal merit and worth. Therefore, if one gets an increase, so should they all. Otherwise, what's the point of even having a classification system? It's meaningless.
203	It is was reasonable compromise, but I doubt that any state position salaries are at market condition.
204	All state employees should be payed in accordance with their pay grade at the same rate.
205	It's BS
206	What markets and what conditions? Who decides on what the market conditions are? Their thoughts may be different than mine or yours.
207	State of AK has difficulty hiring and keeping qualified management/supervisors; to me that means market is poor and they need to improve what they do to retain good people - wage increase would be one area.
208	Murkowski...that name alone says it all. Nothing worth talking about.
209	very narrow minded
210	Seems to work individually and shows that at least some professional level job classes are underpaid.
211	It makes sense and will potentially attract qualified candidates to fill positions.
212	As stated above -- not fair to most of us.
213	ARBITRARY
214	That makes a lot of sense as long as it is done promptly and honestly. It sure beats the the alternative that west tested just a few thousand miles west of here for most of the last century.
215	Who adn how it is decided which job classes will be affected? I feel all job classes need to be looked at not just a select few.
216	They should do a combination of both in order to stop the net loss of pay with inflation taken into count and also attract and retain qualified staff in high-demand job classes.
217	I honestly don't think one thing he and his administration has done did much for Alaska
218	It depends on which side of the pay increase you're on - I've been on both sides and it seemed fair until I was on the other side. In a union, across the board increases are the result of bargaining while market based pay reflects reality in certain job classifications. The union should support and encourage both types of monitary gains.
219	Accross the board would be better, but I commend the attempt at MBP. Problem is that the results are crazy. They don't compare to real local salary levels so I believe the results are not helping much.
220	Market-based pay is important especially because of the "pension" removal from Tier IV. We've lost our ability to attract good employees
221	Good concept but difficult to apply when determining the market value of a public service that doesn't readily appear in the private market.
222	i am happy for those job classes that received the 'raise' but feel it is terribly needed across the board for all SU employees.
223	I believe it is a valid part of a larger plan to address comprehensive salary inadequacies. Some professional positions are much more difficult to fill due or even find qualified applicants to apply for due to competition with the private sector and with other state systems. If we are going to be able to compete for specialized positions, we have to make sure we can compete with others trying to hire that same professional.
224	Murkowski should never be pardoned for what he has done to supervisors who do most of the work - not executive staff who got hefty raises.
225	These are clearly insufficient. A single range increase for selected job classes given very difficult criteria do not solve the overall problem of poor salary and diminishing benefits. In order to be competetive and recruit good employees, the state needs to increase salary for all professional ranges by at least 10%.
226	Well at least my husband got increased - like he should of compared to a range 21 here who's job duties don't even compare. He has a lot more responsibility and consequences if there is an error.
227	It seems both methods need to be considered. Some job classifications need a more in-depth analysis while some may only need a salary increase based on inflation.
228	If addressed equally to all clasifications it is somewhat acceptable.
229	Either way it is political - - many job classes need increase and doing them one by one seems unfair (e.g., 2 increases for nurses in the past 3-4 years but not if it is nurse working as a program manager).
230	Not a fair assessement.
231	It was too selective. If the true "market" analysis was done, many more positions would be involved.
232	Unfair to the employees that have not received. Needs to be a top priority.
233	Totally disagree with it!!! There needs to be across the board wage increases.
234	Actually I don't have an issue with that, because eventually all levels will rise (assuming market based studies don't indicate a lower range). More ammunition for reclass studies if imbalances occur.
235	If you mean that my salary would be comparable to those in the private sector that do similar work, I am all for it.
236	Sups pay should be adjusted across the board.
237	Don't know much about it, but if Murkowski came up with it, it is probably a pretty dumb idea.
238	Crappy. If certain jobs are so far behind on the pay scale, perhaps all positions should be looked at as far as pay goes. Even with that particular study only those with "nurse" in the title got pay increases, not even those required to have a nursing certification updated, but did not have "nurse" in the title, they did not get increases. So it was random in truth as far as DHSS is concerned.
239	I believe both strategies are necessary to ensure appropriate pay for all employees.
240	It should be across the board.
241	I think in some cases that is necessary but it should be a supplement for across the board increases. We need across the board increases as well. In fact across the board increase should be a priority.
242	If a particular job class is way out of line with the private sector, I can understand a pay increase for the one job class.
243	I don't like it. It is wrong to give certain classifications raises and not others.
244	Fair but need a closer look at more than just a few classifications
245	I don't believe market conditions should factor into pay increases. The level of authority and decision making are based upon grade which shuld be the determining factor.
246	ok
247	Totally unfair
248	I'm not sure what "market conditions" mean--what my peers in private industry are making (including their bonus?) or some other factor?
249	That's fine. Most are under paid now so they will increase.
250	I think it is needed. Some jobs are overpaid in the state system, many are underpaid. Across the board increases just continue this inequity.

251	Ridiculous
252	I hate it because it doesn't consider all positions or the cost of living in Alaska.
253	unfairly divides and separates our union(s) members
254	Never heard of it
255	Discriminatory!
256	Depends on who is doing the study and what is more important to Americans. Satisfying commercial interests or satisfying state interests. Market based studies are based on private corporation benefit models. If we were to get Christmas bonuses and other possible perks, it may have a place. My job does not translate well into private corporate models as it is a conglomeration of several jobs.
257	The proceedures create inequities within departments among equally talanted supervisors.
258	I think there is a place for them as long as other pay considerations or studies are utilized as well.
259	I think it's unfair as all employees should be treated equally
260	No opinion
261	I think pay should reflect the success of the person rather than a raise being given regardless of the person success. People who are horrible managers continue to get the same pay as those who are successful in reaching the goals of the department.
262	I think there should be across the board increases for inflation but if there is difficulty hiring and retaining certain job classes they should be looked at more closely.
263	I think that's a "cop out."
264	Provides no incentive to attract personnel to work for the state.
265	don't know
266	It was unequal in the benefit to state employees.
267	Didn't agree with much of what the Murkowski did....and certainly didn't care about this one.
268	They were not fair.
269	OK since it got us a raise but not OK since overall pay is still way to low to retain staff.
270	I'm in favor of Market Based Pay, this will retain excellent workers and also entice new workers to the SOA. Personally I am shocked that a person gets a raise on longevity rather than steps based on advancing their skillset or knowledge within their job range. Steps should be based on knowledge - skillset and competnacy - not longevity. I'd rather have the incentive to better myself technically and recieve a higher wage by producing credits earned, certificates achieved, to reach that next step.
271	Its Wrong
272	It's appropriate when applied to those job clasifications that do need to be addresses, but unfair when applied only to the appointed staff and not lower ranges.
273	bad ideal- only increased Com. and other appointed positions
274	I am not sure.
275	Bull shit. It was and is the good ole boy system. How long do our requests for job classifications sit at the bottom of DOP's to do basket. This creates a system ripe with unfairness. The administration fails to look at everyone and everybody's job class and that is what is not fair; I do believe some positions do deserve higher pay than others but every position needs to be looked at.
276	Its very unsatisfactory!!
277	I think with the "new tier" it's going to be harder to recruit people into state government. One alternative to this is to compensate with higher wages. I think that wages have not kept up with the private sector in the last 15 years.
278	While I agree on market based pay when properly applied and kept current, however the system as a whole is woefully underpaid.
279	Overall, this has been very unfair.
280	I believe the two should be used hand in hand. There is definately a need for across the board wage increases, but there is also a need to address difficult to file job classes via MBP analysis. I don't see them as mutually exclusive.
281	OK with it if it is accurate and not too time consuming. One problem is that the classifications have been diluted greatly over the years. Environmental Program Specialists not include almost any one with a college degree and it used to be that they had to have a technical science or engineering degree. We need and are not attracting people with those degrees any more.
282	Not familiar with this. Concept is OK but I don't know if I would trust his sources or figures.
283	need more info, but Murkowski and everything he did sucks.
284	most positions in the state system are under payed at this time.
285	Basically a good idea. It should, however, be open to all job classes, not just a chosen few. Additionally, after having reviewed some of the results, I'm not sure where they get their information. Seems to be on the low side for the most part. Their "benchmark" position for analysis also beens to be flawed.
286	UNREALISTIC
287	It's a better method than raising them all straight accorss..
288	Corrections nationwide is underpaid, particularly given the increase in responsibility and knowledge needed.
289	I am not convinced the 'Market Based Pay' studies use the proper comparisons, especially for biologists.
290	I need more information about this before commenting.
291	The M administration was the worst in state history, and worker pay issues are just one item on the list. Of course, across the board wage increases are the way to go in the public sector. If there were a true market pay approach, how could failure to adjust wages be justified compared to the actions of other state governments in the US. The state is awash in cash, and wants to beef up its reserves, in essence creating another source of revenue for "the future". I think they need to pay us now.
292	I think it's a great idea to look at what the market is paying for comparable private-sector or government jobs. There should be comparisons for a great majority of State of Alaska positions. From those comparisons, a general trend should be apparent. That trend should be applied to all employees.
293	It seems appropriate except that not enough studies were done.
294	It seems it rewards some positions and not all.
295	They only work as good as the criteria used to make market based comparisons to certain job classifications. In some cases the comparison is difficult to make. Some job classifications may get shortchanged while others may get an unreasonable increase.
296	If they were current it would be more meaningful
297	I do not know enough about the topic to make a comment.
298	Don't know much about it so would need to know more but doesn't sound like a good thing.
299	I feel there is some merit in this approach. However, one would have to survey all of the various job classes and then compare them to the private sector saleries to determine what job classifications warranted increases. I would like to compete with the private sector in enticing those highly qualified employees and not just settle for someone willing to work for less. Bottom line is "you get what you pay for". I strongly believe most of the State's employees in the various job classes are underpaid when compared to their private sector counterparts. We just need to have an independent survey to prove it. The findings may support increases in some job classifications and not in others. If this was the case we need to support it as a group and feel good for those that got the increases. After all, if you were working for the private sector you would only get paid your current "market" value.
300	He was a bastard to begin with...why would I trust anything he proposed???
301	I am OK with the market based pay. There are a lot of professionals that we could attract to state employment if we can pay competetive with the market.
302	I think the problem with the concept is that then the administration decides who to give a raise to, sometimes because of friendships or political reasons, instead of everyone being treated the same. If my job was compared to what a similar job would pay in private industry in Alaska, I would probably make at least $20,000 more a year.
303	Don't know anything about it
304	I think they should both be considered due to the type of work performed by the State. The Federal side gives annual increases across the board. So I can see both sides.
305	No real opinion.
306	I aggree we all need a raise but I also feel that "Market Based Pay" studies should be looked at for cetain job classess. As a biologist I see that most of our highly quaulified individuals are leaving to go to the fed as their pay is about 40% higher with very little responsibilitiy, and filling those positions is difficult given the poor aplicant pool to choose from.
307	Seems reasonable. I was increased one step, but suspect that one step is the most they would ever increase at a time.
308	Poor
309	Don't know enough about the issue.
310	Don't trust this approach unless done by independent source, otherwise a waste of money.
311	I don't believe all job classes are treated fairly because of this. The rules in which personnel uses to determine if this method is the avenue to go are not consistent or fair. I think all job classes should be looked at as a whole since we are seeing the same recruiting problems regardless of the job class. In order to get a "market based pay" study, you have to justify numerous aspects, which takes more time and cost to do.
312	this is not fair
313	I feel because I am in the clerical field that his decision was biased. I could easily make more money in the private sector. The Public Health Nurses all received a raise this year and the clerks have not.
314	Not needed.
315	will divide an already eclectic membership base
316	not fair - his view was myopic - out of sight out of mind
317	It has thus far had no impact on my pay, so until it is implemented and increases my pay, which is well below comparable positions elsewhere, I think it has failed. Conceptually though it may have merit.
318	It is great if you are part of a study and your group got a raise. If not, it stinks. My fear is that the market based pay will replace the bargaining process and exclude staff who were not part of the market condition study. The raises given are probably not in line with inflation over the past years.
319	Unfair - many positions were not researched. I know mine was not.
320	As a hiring manager, the "market conditions" pay increase was needed to hire Nurses to fill our direct care positions. Private industry salaries for nurses were much higher than ours. However I am against "across the board wage increases" for everyone. Simply because some of my staff don't deserve it. They are protected by their unions and they are allowed to put out substandard work and get raises for just being alive and sitting at a desk. As managers we are getting the shaft because we do our work and someone else's work because it is too hard to get someone out. While this may sound self serving there should be a board wage increase for managers only.
321	working in public health, the biggest problem has been the significant increases that nurses have attained. I know they are having a horrific time filling nursing positions, but it has created a significant discrepancy between levels of responsibility and compensation.
322	May have some merit, but then again so did the jet. I support accross the board adjustments, but some job classes are more underpaid than others.
323	I don't have a problem with it, but it's been too selective only covering a few job classes where there has been difficulty recruiting (i.e. engineering). Where the unfairness comes in is that it should be done for all job classes, not just the specific ones where the agency has had trouble recruiting.
324	I think that ANYTHING the Murkowski administration did was anti stateworker. His directors and commisioners received raises. We have been asking for a raise for a decade now and have not received it. Murkowski took care of the "good ol' boys" and stuck it to the working class state employees by taking our guaranteed retirements.
325	It really sucked.
326	Should be just one of a few tools to develop adjustments....also adjust more broadly for overall gap between cost of living vs. salaries
327	The "market based pay" studies do not result in raises that truly reflect the market. Salaries need to be increased across the board for all supervisors.
328	Didn't like it.
329	By doing this you are increasing the class wars that exist in the private sector. Market Based Pay overpays some workers at the expense of others.
330	unsure.
331	I believe I addressed that above. The distance between the "haves" and "have-nots" will keep increasing as the "haves" continue to get percentage raises in addition to what they have already gotten.
332	I have not studied this enough to make a statement. I would like to see all staff receive an increase but need merit also.
333	Recently some DOT positions received a range increase, but others deserved it just as much. We should have some standard beyond the vagarities of the market.
334	Biased and unfair to those of us that work in stable career fields.
335	This sort of biased increase is demeaning for some job classifications and leads to general dissatisfaction and loss of good workers.
336	Many problems with this approach. No funding strategy, which creates a set of other issues...forced vacancy, envy, etc. Premise for MBP is a history of recruitment problems. This doesn't speak to the long term impact of inflation. Those of us at the end of our careers get caught between a rock and a hard place.
337	Need both.
338	It would have been fair if that study included every job class and not just a select few.
339	I think the union should work to avoid this type of minipulation that allows the administration to increase wages for only certain job classes
340	Unfair. State employees do things that the "market" doesn't account for.
341	It would be helpful if they had been implemented. Data Processing employees are still waiting for theirs. We are at the point where we cannot attact programmers because our wages are so far out of line from the market.
342	Market based pay sounds good on paper, but can be very subjective on what classification is studied for an increase.
343	Like everything else to include our union to a certain extent- full of inaccuracies, and corruption that is justified as "politics". There are a host of people on the west coast making a lot more with a lot better than what we are in MSCVE and that applies to both Supervisore and non supervisors.
344	Murkowski simply knee jerked eveything he did. A market based pay study really doesn't do anything as far as I can tell. We are behind many and ahead of some so what does that do for us.
345	Not sure.
346	Since State salaries is no longer competitive with federal or municipal (Anchorage) salaries, "market conditions" should apply to all State jobs.
347	It does not seem equitable, since we all pay the same price for groceries at the store.
348	This has caused a disperity in pay for certain enrty level and professional classes, and apperas unfair. The disperity causes low moral, employees don't feel their 100% effort is important. The dispermit has made many classes unable to compete for the most qualified staff, and this affects ability of those being well compensated to get their work out, becasue we can't keep staff in low paying jobs to complete the work and turn it out to the pubilc and diminishes the ability of the State to serve the public interest.
349	dont know
350	I don't know about it.
351	It sucks, not fair to those who aren't in those "special" classifications.
352	I believe both apply, the wage in general is low however positions such as mechanics would also need the market based study.
353	It should be across the board. All supervisors are going above and beyond with little compensation
354	This was clearly their way to limit pay increases for all state employees. The Murkoski administration was not concerned about equal pay for equal work. When we review contracts given to the private sector and note the rate that they pay their employees is greater than what we pay our employees to do the same work it is frustrating. It is no surprise why we are unable to recruit new employees, they make better pay and the same benefits in the private sector.
355	Was not aware of this...
356	Haven't reviewed this
357	Have not reviewed this report.
358	Worst administration todate
359	no opinion
360	They would have been fine if the were implemented. I am in an IT job class, and their market based pay adjustment (from Knowles I believe) was not comparable to private sector jobs.
361	Don't like
362	I support it if used properly. However, who conducts the study? I am also concerned about apparent differences in managerial pay between agencies based on leavel of responsibility. I am a range 20 manager and at one time had almost 100 staff under me serving 150,000 plus customers a year. I see my peers in some other State agencies with nowhere near that level of responsibility yet at ranges at or higher than mine.
363	If they can be substantiated, they are justified. For example, clerical vs. technical positions. I'm not downplaying the importance of good clerical staff, but obviously persons with clerical skills are easier to find.
364	I'm all for it so long the market can adjusted for inflation and COLA
365	I really do not have much understanding of it at all. It seemed like perferential treatment and didn't seem fair. Across the board wage increases are the only way to make the entire workforce feel appreciated.
366	From what I understand that to be, I tend to agree with it.
367	I didn't like anything they did.
368	YUK
369	I agree. The state has to compete for employees in the marketplace.
370	I love it. All positions should have market based pay studies done, but if we can only get a few difficult to fill job classes reviewed then it is better than nothing.
371	He was good to his close friends.
372	We should be competitive with the private sector. Currently I am unable to fill vacant positions do to the low salary.
373	Don't know to much about it, but SU should make a flat % above the highest paid GGU employee they supervise.
374	Makes no sense to this workforce.
375	Nothing that Murkowski did was to beneifit employees another poor idea
376	market based is the proper way to go.
377	It is reasonable that there should be increase in difficult to recruit positions but there needs to be accross the board increases as well. "discrinatory" increases cause great job dissatisfaction with others in the same office that did NOT get the increase.
378	I am new so didn't know much about it.
379	The idea isn't actually wrong. However, their methods are very incorrect. The measures they use do not capture the true "market conditions" for a number of reasons. The first mistake is including cross sections of local industry that includes State of Alaska (regression towards the mean). Another error is not including nationwide samples (adjusted for Alaska cost-of-living). I also suspect that the numbers they included from Federal Employee job classes do not include the COLA amount which is somewhere around 20% of base pay. These mistakes actually taint or decrease the "average market pay" value that they are calculating.
380	It is a bad idea. White male professions will benefit, women will suffer, it will just bring the inequity of men's pay vs. women's pay into the contract.
381	We need an across the board increase just to keep pace/ catch up with inflation, but we also need a system to look at each position to make sure it is competitive in the job market. Make it look like a fair process to pay people fair market wages not just a money grab because everyone else has.
382	The Market Based Pay has broken the state's classification system which is (or was) based on internal alignment (like work for like pay).
383	Very unfair. "Exempt", commissioner-level employees received huge increases and nothing happened to the rest of the State workforce salaries.
384	As an engineer, there was some benefit, but still less than the lowest private equivalent.
385	Generally, I am not enthusiastic. This would work for some job classes, i.e. Analyst/Programmer, Engineer, etc., but many of our positions do not have counter parts in the private sector.
386	I'm not familiar with "across the board wage" report.
387	I think that state employee starting salaries should be correlated to those of comparable private sector jobs, and, accordingly, any incumbent state employee pay increases should offered as a performance-based range. This will give the employee a strong incentive to increase their performance and productivity in exchange for fair and deserved compensation. This type of pay structure will also ensure a qualfied and stable work force.
388	It is wrong. All employees should be allowed to increase their buying power over time.
389	bad, bad, bad.
390	I understand what they were doing there, but all classes need to be looked at. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease"
391	We don't measure up even if we try, so why bother?
392	As an engineer, I think it was a good approach. In general, I believe pay should be based on how hard it is to recruit replacements.
393	Prefer across the board wage increases.
394	Not fair or equitable
395	Do not favor unless they overall raise wages. Seems like a tact to try to limit the number of people who get raises. Inflation affects everyone.
396	that is OK
397	Bad for Moral of those not getting increases.
398	It is an unfair practice which only creates moral issues.
399	does not work. cost of living increases for everyone. hydrologist, geogologist, biologist should all be paid the same.
400	none
401	I think this discriminates against job classes that do not have a handy private sector equivalent. Many supervisors spend years aquiring the skills to administer government programs that have no direct private sector market to which to compare.
402	I support the concept, but not sure how it was applied. As a State employee, I want each job class to be competitive with the private sector. Across the board increases are an easy solution, but they don't identify which job classes have the most trouble recruiting because their pay lags so far behind parallel private sector jobs. It's my observation that the professional positions (those requiring degrees and advanced degrees) have been compromised the most, although I believe pay increase for paraprofessionals and support staff would result in better recruitment and retention.
403	I am not sure, but I do know that certain job classifications are better compensated in the private sector and it is up to the State to compensate those "hard to hire" "hard to keep" employees that are lured to more lucrative positions. From a general standpoint, overall "across the board" increases would help compensate the lowest paid employees that do a large share of the work.
404	I believe it is discriminatory for the rest of state employees. All job classes are underpaid, not just certain ones. Market Based Pay has just set up inequities in the classification system and pretty much destroyed it.
405	I can understand the reasoning behind "Market Base Pay", where it is dificult to recruit for a position when individuals can earn much more for the same type of job in the private sector. But I also believe that an across the board wage increase should be considered as well, especially since the cost of living has increased dramitically.
406	Most "State" wage studies don't give a fair representation of the work being performed. If we did a fair study, most salaries would rise.
407	It's great for getting and retaining people in the jobs that are difficult to recruit, but it sucks for the remaining employees whose job has an abundant number of persons seeking employment.
408	It missed the mark since it left out the actuall job duties of certain classifications. I am a Natural Resource Manager I within DNR, but actualy, I am a real estate developer for the state.
409	It's a start. All positions should be assessed as market based.
410	Don't trust Murkowski
411	There is some merit, but I don't think it has been completed for all job classifications.
412	No comments.
413	Better than nothing I suppose, but clearly a desperate ploy to bring salaries in line with the private sector in some areas. Time and effort are wasted making a special plea for every situation.
414	It is terrible and it leads to bad pay discrepancies, bad feelings, and many remaining underpaid employees4
415	Not sure
416	I'm not familiar with it. Higher increases in pay may be needed for certain job classes so they're commensurate with similar jobs in the private sector, but that doesn't preclude the need for an increase for ALL positions to bring us back in line with inflation.
417	This method reeks of favoritism. I would almost guarantee the average working person would not see a salary increase, only the appointed cronies (which usually include past legislatures in jobs they are unqualified to perform).
418	Agree, I should make as much as the equal folks in the private industry with similar jobs/duties/responsiblities. Just like Murkowski admin, give the bosses raises and let the rest work toward their way up to those positions for the "extra" wages. Reward the folks who work the hardest and have the largest work loads/responsiblities.
419	It was only targeted at certain positions. Not every position was treated fairly.
420	Needs to equitable, done across the board.
421	This is a good idea.
422	Across the board wages are fair and reasonable.
423	I do not know enough about the issue to comment.
424	I believe it is not legitimate to compare public service positions with private sector positions, or to base public service pay on "market conditions".
425	My opinion is that our previous administration was based on favoritism. Within the Dept. of Corrections, decisions have been made by Human Resources that do not promote fairness to all employees at similar levels, specifically, Probation Officer III overtime eligibility. Correctional Officer Sergeants (first line supervisors) with a jail are OT eligible, yet the same position within the Division of Probation and Parole is not. Additionally, within DPP, Human Recourses for the State of Alaska has unjustly and inappropriately authorized overtime eligibility for certain probation officer supervisors over others, which creates an atmosphere of favoritism. What is authorized for one position should be granted for all.
426	Need more information.
427	I am not familiar with the study.
428	I beleive that the work being performed by all job classes is not adequately compensated, so personnally would support the across the board wage increase
429	I believe this was as good as the person that pushed it through? Perhaps it should be the union that initiates these.
430	It sucks.
431	unfamiliar w/the plan
432	Market prices reflect states with a lower cost of living than Alaska. Should be across the board increases.
433	All employees should be receive pay increases equally. If certain job classes warrant higher pay, it should be reflected in their classification (range), not by giving them raises when everyone else doesn't.
434	Necessary to keep those classifications viable (and I have employees affected) but problemmatic for morale and also for other high-level professional positions for which directly comparable private sector positions are hard to identify.
435	I don't believe that inflation cares about "market conditions" and it increases regardless of how difficult it is to recruit in a specific field.
436	I can understand how certain job classes are more difficult to recruit for...however, it is important to consider the employees who work hard everyday (but whose positions are not often recruited for), too.
437	I think they suck it only addressed very few fields
438	May have some merit. All of us would like an across the board wage increase. But there are certain job classifications that are under paid.
439	I'm not familiar enough with it to answer. I can see where it could be unworkable (someone you supervise could conceivable end up in a higher salary range than the supervisor) and across the board increases would be best.
440	While the concept is fine, the ones I have seen are absurd and laughable. They managed to prove the axiom that figures don't lie ... but liars figure. If they were done with oversight by impartial persons I might be more inclined to believe them.
441	there should be large across the board pay increases to provide parity with private sector pay in all jobs....AND, there may be a need for additional market based pay increases for those job specialities that are exceptionally hard to fill.
442	I like it
443	Unfair, discriminatory.
444	I don't know where they looked at the "market", but their conclusions do not match what I see in my profession on a statewide or a national basis.
445	The studies are biased. As a majority rules organization, we need to push for across the board wage increases. There definitely are job classes that need pay scale revisions, but nobody should get a cut in pay and the administration should not be allowed to use these job class wage increases as a substitue for an additional wage increase for everyone.
446	No opinion
447	the concept has appeal, but the way that it has been implemented is flawed.
448	I strongly feel that all should be treated equally.
449	no opinion but all employees need a wage increase to keep up with the cost of living.
450	It is junk.
451	Market based pay…..a stupid idea….If this carries weight, then why is the State of Alaska classification system needed. In other words, the administration says that a pay grade level equivalent for a certain job is more valuable than another. Classifications and pay schedules listed as Professional should be the same across the board.
452	I think it would help justify the increases to the public. Even though the public doesn't pay any taxes, they do want government to be accountable. It's just that this would take much longer. Maybe go for a pay raise now and concurrently start a salary study.
453	Many govt jobs don't have private sector equivalents. Across the board is the best way to go.
454	The fact that Murkowski could allow a salary increase of nearly 50% for commissioners, while denying cost-of-living raises that keep up with the inflation in Alaska, serve as a testament to his governorship. While Governor Murkowski always financially supported his friends--which is generally who he appointed as commissioners, he did little in regard to showing concern for more humble public servants. I no longer hold the former governor in high regard.
455	Seems reasonable so long as all job classes are studied.
456	we will never be paid acurately as there will always be a delay between the study and our pay. Besides who wants thier pay to fluctuate, I took this job because it was supposed to be steady and have good benifits. I found out that it is not near as good as the construction field.
457	I think it was a quick solution to trying to fill some vacant positions that are typically very difficult to fill i.e. Nurses.
458	never comfortable with across the board evaluations. more special circumstances need to be addressed and the value of each place more equitably.
459	Rather clever nonsense
460	B.S. We live in a unique state and it requires Geo Diff for all not just Fairbanks!
461	I think we need an across the board wage increase.
462	The problem is with who is defining the job classifications to receive the increase. The Union needs to push for a review of the lower Range PCNs (13-16) covered by our contract.
463	Replace
464	Not in favor of that. I think there needs to be an established pay scale for each position with prospect of moving up a career ladder.
465	I have to say that we do live in a free market economy, and we enter fields of employment that we make ourselves competitive for. I do not think that across the board raises invoke public support because it would be easy to pick apart and find examples counter to the arguement that many of our job classes are underpaid. It may be a difficult situation also in that differential pay increases may weaken morale. However, many of us have always worked side by side with other employees that have better benefits and shorter times to retirement (Tier I). I think that in some fields, like fisheries, the state strongly relies on the continuation of our well deserved reputation, however, the state doesn't see the importance when it comes to paying for the service. We are at a time when many retirees are returning to work given the difficulty in attracting qualified applicants. This continues to depress morale among those Tier II+ who see the double-dippers benefitting, but no sustainable input of new talent. In short, I believe you cannot ignore the market prices-
466	Most positions cannot be measured on a "market" basis
467	I guess it's great if you are one of the folks that get the increased pay. I don't know how to inform the administration that my classification needs a pay increase, but we do.
468	Current pay rates are not acceptable and the State can't retain qualified employees.
469	don't agree
470	Somewhat agree, in that I think some classes (biologists) are grossly underpaid given their overall expertise and level of responsibility (manage multi-million $$ fisheries, many have masters degrees or higher); however, I'm concerned that more positions will then be relegated to "cheaper" positions rather than utilizing the professional biologist positions.
471	Used to reward Exempt cronies.
472	Great, but they did not go far enough or address the issue of hiring staff which are truely qualified
473	unsatisfactory
474	Can make sense depending on job class to attrack and retains certain skilled jobs.
475	Not much
476	Not fair! Were all classifications looked at or just those few that are more difficult positions to hire. Some positions come open more often than others because there are more of those positions within the state (for instance engineers vs. Procurement Specialists). People are not made to feel like a team working towards the same goal, but rather one person's work is more important than others. That should come with the pay & grade range for responsibility, not an overall pay increase to a select few positions.
477	There needs to be both. If it is discovered that we cannot attract applicants to a particular job class because the State does not pay comesurate with the competition we need to look at that. However, that should not be the only gauge and wages need to keep pace with the cost of living.
478	Unfair, all state employees have been neglected when it comes to keeping pay up with inflation.
479	They ignore other studies reflecting the need for increases among state employees ... for instance, Jim Duncan's study of a few years ago.
480	See #4.
481	Do not know enough on this topice to form an opinion.
482	It decreases moral- peers are getting increased pay while others are not.
483	scares me; does not seem fair
484	No opinion
485	This study is only useful if everything is on a level playing field. Facilities Manager in the private sector make 25% more then those in the state. So first bring compensation in line for all professions, than look at market based study for the specialized fields.
486	I do not know anything about it.
487	It was inappropriate as most of the administration was.
488	I think it is good in concept, but takes a long time and is only a band aid to the bigger problem.
489	It stinks!
490	Poor solution. It failed to account for the cost of living increases that we all experience.
491	I think this lacks consideration for general inflation, rising cost of living and gas prices and lends to lopsided pay scales.
492	Would work if properly applied. Private sector jobs and federal job all pay more than the state.
493	Anything that Murkowski had to do with needs to be changed as soon as possible.
494	I agree that basing pay on its market value is probably a better way to justify compensation than an across the board pay increase.
495	No Opinion.
496	It is unfair, and I do not feel they are looking at "real" markets. The IT and Surveyors study for example. Our Division has both of these job classes and we are loosing people quickly to the 'outside" jobs because of pay. How can they say the State pays enough when all of our professional help is leaving because of pay.
497	I agree with Market Based Pay studies
498	The fair and right thing to do is across the board. Which markets were polled? Was everyone treated the same.
499	These studies are designed to be devisive where the emphasis should be to support the group.
500	It was not fair because it was limited to just a few classes, i.e. nurses.

501	In DPH - Nursing, we are having severe recruitment problems. The recent raises based on market conditions are critical to help us compete, during a national nursing shortage, to hire and retain staff to protect public health and respond to public health emergencies all over the State.
502	If recruitment is done from the same population base, market conditions is ok to use.
503	Well, there was a study done when Frank Rue was commissioner of ADFG showing that we are horrendously UNDERPAID, yet Murkowski didn't increas our pay. So I'm not sure how these studies were applied. It appears unfairly perferential.
504	Good idea.
505	Don't even think of fighting this battle. You're going to do what...... complain about how certain classes have gotten raises. This is a loser of an issue.
506	It leaves a lot of the classifications out, only those that had enough pull or they can't find any applicants. It should really be looked at across the board.
507	As a nurse, it was helpful but still does not address all the issues within our system
508	gratuity program comes to mind
509	Done properly its fine, the market for the wide variety of professionals we employ is always changing.
510	not much
511	needs improved to across the board wage increase
512	Not familiar with this??
513	Some jobs, min, have no private sector equivallent. How would "market conditions" evaluate those?
514	No comment, but if it came from that administration, I am sure it was only done to benefit the State.
515	WRONG- WRONG-WRONG. There may have been wasy to grant hiring bonus (where there was a truely demonstrated need)for new hires, and retention bonuses while at the same time granting across the board wage increase to the entire SU thus raising the state's competitiveness with the private sector, big oil, Feds, etc.
516	Pay should be the same across the board
517	This needs to be looked at. I am aware that they reviewed IT as well and am pleased that they determined that this was not valid. IT got an across board 2 range upgrade 8 years ago. What about the folks that make sure the money is there for operations!
518	Not equitable.
519	I favor across the board wage increases. They should be in line with cost of living increases. And, I don't think that very much Murkowski did was fair anyway--we all know about the huge wage increases he gave to the bigwigs--one of which was just days before his departure.
520	That would be fine if wages had kept pace with inflation, but at this point all state employees are underpaid for the work they are doing---give everyone a living wage that is comperable to other state employees and then consider market conditions---but we have a long way to go to catch up in this marketplace. My 24 year old nephew with a high school diploma made more money than I did last year as a 27 year DHSS employee with a master's degree supervising a large unit.
521	Unfair
522	It was unfair and not implemented correctly
523	Crap......Progammers' classifications have increased while the people who use their brain, experience and knowledge for the primary functions of a job are not getting the same pay increases.
524	The edge of a deadly cliff that we are going to fall off.
525	I don't know the particulars of the study by think it makes sense. I see plenty of evidence that we will have to pay more to recruit employees to some fields of work, especially specialty areas for which there is a large demand in the private sector or within the federal government.
526	Uncertain.
527	Unfair and inaccurate
528	Opinion is that across the board increases should occur. I'm never going to be an engineer so won't reap the benefits of that recent market survey.
529	Having been a Juneau resident since 1967, how can wages really be tied to "market conditions" in this city, particularly? I am in favor of across the board increases, as long as they are adequate enough to keep up with inflation.
530	Difficult for me to say as I have not read these studies. Where would I access them?
531	Good, but too little to late. When will my job be part of that study.
532	Market Based Pay is a good way to get an acurate idea of what a particular position is paying in the private sector but I don't agree with using it as a bases for wage increases.
533	I agree with the concept of paying "non-proportional" salaries for various job classes. I believe people should be compensated for what they are expected to achieve. If that means a supervisor expects an employee to deal with a great deal of stress, pressure, and intense situations with the public, they should be compensated. Currently, if you move up a notch on the ladder, you receive a linear incremental increase in salary, regardless of whether your stress load increased proportionally or not (i.e. your salary may increase by 3%, but your responsibility and stress load increased by 100%. So, I don't think that pay based on "market conditions", or "demand" is warranted, as biologists are mainly government employees and there may not be a valid a private sector comparison, but the idea of paying people appropriately for their workload and stressload makes sense to me.
534	I dont think it is accurate. I have a second job as a waitress and I make more money there, than I do here, with a BA.
535	I don't know enough to make comments on this.
536	Unfair to job classsifications not included in studies. No vehicle to substantiate pay increases for job classes
537	It would be great if they weren't predisposed to the outcome. I have seen pay studies come back showing that engineers, surveyors, etc are paid consistent with the private sector when clearly they are not. In spite of market based studies, however, some increases need to be across the board because we are simply not keeping up with the private section in pay and health and retirement.
538	The concept has merit but all parts of government must be allowed to participate in it through a FAIR process.
539	Market based pay studies are a good thing.
540	I am not familiar with the details of such studies, but know that we are not competitive with the private sector or federal government in our pay and benefits. This knowledge is based on the fact that we have lost qualified personnel to both. We have seen a decrease in the number of professional engineers leaving DOT&PF as a result of increasing their pay; however, none of the other job classifications have been evaluated and continue to experience a "brain drain" to the private sector once a person is trained.
541	I haven't seen the result. Many of our salaries wouldn't compete well.
542	I do not agree, we all work hard for our service and we all should be treated equally.
543	I think the results are fair but all job job classifications.
544	I would like to see a trial study done. I don't think across-the-board wage increases target the appropriate positions.
545	I think it is fine if they actually studied ALL positions within the State structure. Neither the administration nor the legislature seem willing to invest the funds to do so.
546	No Opinion
547	I disagree vehemently with the Murkowski administration's use of these studies.
548	I don't have much to say on the matter because I am not overly familiar with the "Market Based Pay" study.
549	unfair
550	The pay raises need to be across the board. The market based pay increases create odd and unfair anomalies. Subordinated are sometimes paid more than supervisor.
551	There are both good and bad associated with this type of pay, there are those jobs that are not in a hazzardous setting in any way, then there are those that every day you could be subjected to a hazzard.
552	It can be good as well as bad. In some job classifications it is too broad of a scope and this will never happen in that classification.
553	I think it is great for those people that got them... I think it stinks for the rest of us!
554	As a nurse it was long over due. Nurses are not office workers, but since the entire state system is set up and based on office workers who if they are not there the work waits for them. As nurses the work of caring for patients can not always wait, and often times can not go uncovered. As a supervisory nurse for the state I was making a fraction of what I would make as a staff nurse in the hospital. I know that the increase was viewed differently by non-nurses, but Nursing is a Profession that requires an advance degree, specialized training, continued education and a LICENSE! All of which is paid for by the employee.
555	While there is some fairness to those working in the industry, example "nurses", it creates disparity and morale problems with existing co-workers who may be part of management or co-workers who are not trained in the specific field. Across the board wage increases would be a fairer approach for State workers.
556	Some jobs are more hazardess and more demanding, most jobs that are included in that category are dealing with high value fisheries, those managers should be paid more.
557	I'm in favor of pay commensurate with private sector equivalents. Currently I'd be making 20% more in salary as my counterparts in the private sector.
558	made sense to me
559	It is an inexcusable abuse. Market Based Pay would have raised MY salary...so why wasn't this used accross the board, instead of just for the priviledged few???
560	We are already 34% behind increases in cost of living. We have sustained a 34% pay cut as a result. I am considering leaving State service at this time. The Marked Based Pay plan seems ill advised. We are not currently compensated in a fair way. Before we discuss other options, the administration must see to its responsibilities to its employees and bring salaries to a fair level.
561	I feel this is unfair, we are all State employees and should all be afforded wage increases. A clerical position is just as valuable as a high level position.
562	I think there is nothing wrong with the concept as long as it is applied fairly. ie I think nearly all job classes would qualify for an increase if the market study were done across the board. Some would be affected more than others that's all.
563	I agree with it. There are certain positions that are very difficult to recruit for.
564	I think the State should pay what is needed to retain good, solid employees. Some expertises will require a higher grade than others. I don't think the State should compete toe-to-toe with private industry though.
565	I believe that this is demoralizing to those job classes that are not increased.
566	Good stop gap measure.
567	I'm OK with the concept, but the supervisor differential provisions of the contract are inadequate to fairly treat the supervisors. Also, the implementation of the market-based studies should cover each job class over a reasonable period, not just those with an immediate hiring need for pet road projects. Finally, the implementation of such studies should be standardized and replace the current classification based range assignment.
568	Ok with me.
569	Murkowski was a corrupt jerk - he did nothing but bad things for the state of Alaska. If he supported a particular policy, then I'm automatically opposed to it.
570	I agree with the "Market Based Pay" study if it is applied to all job classes and done in a fair and representative manner. An across the board wage increase will not properly address comparative private and public job class specific wage disparities.
571	Salaries should follow market based wages as well as CPI adjustments. Alignment of wages should be a continuous process.
572	I think it's a good idea except that it's not clear who determines which positions are studied. ALso, the last study for nurses resulted in an increase for ALL nurses when LPNs were already above the market average.
573	Not fair!
574	The process is too cumbersome to be effective and with a goal of paying mid-market salaries, does little to attract well qualified individuals.
575	They need to look at all job classes for increases, not just a few. My husband and I have not had our job class increase and others have had significant increases in range. I feel passed over.
576	everyone should get a raise. we are behind the times. The price of gas and heating have all gone up. not our salaries.
577	Unfair
578	I think this is inherently unfair unless they are doing market based pay studies for all positions.
579	I believe that the process should include both systems starting with an 'across the board wage increase' to bring the whole state up to speed with cost of living increases related to inflation, fuel costs, etc. A 'market based pay' should then kick in to adjust for hiring needs and to stay competative not to counter cost of living increases.
580	I believe if the State was paying "prevailing" wages we wouldn't be loosing our best workers. Turnover the past several years has been very high.
581	You can make statistics mean anything.The fact of the matter is that we probably need both - across the board increases and market conditions.
582	There should be both across the board pay increases to get us caught up to the cost of living, as well as job-specific increases for those in professions with high demand from industry.
583	State employee salary adjustments require both types of analysis. Broad wage adjustment first.
584	The only problem with that is the fact the the current job descriptions for all of the managers positions that I work with are not reflective of the work that is actually being done and the expectations that are placed on the managers.
585	Unacceptable and totally UNFAIR
586	There are some jobs such as nursing where the state lagged far behind and needed a "Market Based Pay" study in order to attempt to reach the current pay of the private sector. However, there should have been an across the board wage increase for all employees, considering the fact that most employees would receive higher wages in the private sector
587	I think it has helped to show the administration how the pay compares with the private sector, but it did not cover enough postitions to be fair. Both items need to be utilized.
588	I don't know that much about it.
589	Do not agree, especially since it wasn't really used in my field (social services).
590	Market based pay would increase my pay by 50%!!
591	Very bad idea.
592	I benefitted from it, and think it is reasonable when hiring is difficult.
593	They failed to look at two items: [1] unequal for similar work; [2] pay for similar work outside the state
594	I think he gave us what he thought was barely enough to shut us up without giving as much as should be required to match the private sector.
595	It was an example of government at it's worst!
596	There has been difficulty in recruitment in most job classes. These ad hoc class studies will lead to inequities, distortions in the pay scales and decline in morale for workers that are in classes that have not been reviewed.
597	I think that this procedure can be manipulated by the administration and applied only to classes that they want to apply it to. There could be problems.
598	Bad
599	Think it certainly is one possible solution, but government is so slow to react that we lose valuable people by the time they get done studying the problem.
600	Wasn't fair....
601	This is not fair as the same type of decisions, work, rules, and responsibilities come within the management group of people or supervisors have to make.
602	It has helped with recruitment and retention for some classifications that could not compete with private sector.
603	Should be accross the board and the Land Survey Series should be fixed.
604	It needed to be across the board. How can someone say their job is more of a value then anothers persons job.
605	Sounds fair
606	I believe this may be appropriate, but seems that almost all job classes are way below the curve overall. It used to be the "State" job was the job to have. Now it's the job until you can find something better.
607	I really don't think it makes sense because pay is unsatisfactory regardless of "market conditions"
608	market-based pay studies alone are not good indicators of what it takes to attract potential employees to state service
609	It gives the state too much say in who gets a raise and who doesn't. It also favors higher paid workers. It's the clerks and lower level staff who should be getting raises, not Murkowski's staff.
610	Although this may not be what you are looking for I agree with evaluating the market rather than increasing across the board. I would like more attention paid to what ppl are doing and producing....
611	There is a serious disjuncture between state pay & benefits and comparable private sector pay & benefits. Market based pay should be expanded to include most job classifications.
612	Don't have a problem with it.
613	We should be paying all employees what they are worth and market conditions should certainly be considered when the State is adjusting wages.
614	A joke!
615	worked for me
616	unfair
617	They focused on the most neede job classes, not on the pay issue.
618	should not focus on only certain job classes, but systematically address all job classes and seek partity amoung duties and responsibilities within the same range
619	I am an A/P V Supervisor and will leave soon because of the low pay and the ability to retain qualifed employees. The unproductive employees stay and the productive employees leave. The classification system for Software Engineering is way out of date! This is an effective tool for a broken classification system.
620	Unfair and possible gives preferential treatment to certain individuals.
621	Doesn't work well
622	Doesn't bother me. It's unwise to pretend that the market doesn't have something to do with the quality of employees. If certain skills are more demanded in the private sector, I have no problem with the state paying extra for those positions to avoid excessive turnover.
623	I disagree with it since it does not consider education and experience.
624	I don't mind them as long as they are factually based.
625	I feel that both across the board wages as well as market based pay studies need to happen. We first need to get our base pay to a level that one can live on. The next thing we need to do is make State employment competitive so "Market Based Pay' studies would help with this.
626	Some job classes that are difficult to fill because the state is not competitive with the private sector should have their pay increased to meet the market compensation. At the same time, adequate seperation should be maintained between each level of state government. During the past 4-years, GGU, Executive Branch and exem
627	I don't have enough information to form an opinion.
628	This seems highly unfair to the ordinary person working his/her job duties with the same proficiency and to the extent beyond the call of duty than that of the employee who receives a pay increase based on "market conditions". In addition, please explain market conditions. I must not fall within that category!
629	Very unfortunate.
630	poor policy by Murkowski
631	no opinion
632	B.S.
633	I think it should be fully considered. We are competing with industry for good employees. In competition, market conditions control prices.
634	Reasonable, but an across-the-board increase is also justified considering market conditions
635	Strongly disagree with such action.
636	Each job class has different pay rates. However, there are very few Emergency Management job classes to compare to. We are more like police and fire personnel than administrative.
637	Don't like it.
638	I see a couple of problems with this: It promotes discontent amongst the ranks and the many individuals that it takes to accommplish the dapartment mission are often overlooked - while others are compensated. It is unfair because we are all subject to the same inflation and increased cost of living. Many of my support personnel have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet which ultimately means that they get stretched thin and someone isn't getting the 110% out of the employee.
639	Hmmmmm, I can't actually put in writing what I think of that!!!!!!!!! But I do certainly think that I could live with a 27% pay increase.....I know I'm worth it! :)
640	I do not trust any "study" that was conducted during his administration
641	seem necessary for extreme shortages - such as nurses, engineers, programmers, etc.
642	OK
643	This is the only way to keep certain job classes filled.
644	Done wrong as it did not look at future hiring issues
645	Unfair. It only looks at manatement's selected job types and leaves other important jobs out. It also reduces the pressure for accross the board cost of living increases.
646	It was a terrible idea.Within the Department I work for all the administration needed to do is review the salary schedules submitted by our contractors.
647	I think that is a great idea. It happened for the computer/programming staff back under Gov. Knowles, I would like to see it for others, especially ADF&G biologists.
648	Unfair - I believe there are many jobs in the state that would be very difficult to conduct a 'market based pay' study on. Why should those individuals not have the opportunity to have someone review their pay vs. work accomplished?
649	Murkowski, his commissioners, and airport manager have driven Fairbanks international Airport to the brink of disaster.
650	not sure
651	I'm in support of the pay based on market as there are job classes that are difficult to recruit for because the private industry pays more then the State for these job classes.
652	Across the board wage increases are the best and fairest for all. Market based studies will benefit only those in so-called Hot Jobs.
653	agree
654	not fair.
655	Total disagreement
656	This causes decention in the ranks.
657	As an Admin. Supv of ACs, I have seen sudden wage increases for nurses; but none for ACs in spite of a yearlong study intended to reclassify those jobs and increase wages. The entire study was negated when the new governor took office.
658	No opinion - pay should reflect responsibilities and tasks
659	Lame
660	It stinks!!
661	Disagreed with Murkowski. All job classes deserve across the board increase.
662	I don't know much about this, but feel that state workers are underpaid compared to private sector employees and those in other states with lower costs of living. In the past a strong benefit package and job security offset the lower salaries - this does not seem to be the case at this point.
663	Don't know.
664	It sounds unfair but I don't know the details.
665	I think it may be necessary where the positions are critical to the health and safety of Alaskans, but should not be the norm.
666	They missed a lot of areas where many people are underpaid, however, political appointees fared quite well, despite their overwhelming lack of qualifications.
667	Not fair.
668	I think it is necessary to fill some positions.
669	I am ok with this, as long as the lower pay jobs are a living wage. A good Admin Clerk should get paid more than $2,000 a month or they will move on. The lack of defined retirement benefits is what cost us the most towards future employees, now we have a less competitive offer in comparison to hourly pay, except long term leave time, 10 years out.
670	The market has never been a real comparison, Don't compare what I do to the manager of McDonalds, compare to those we regulate.
671	I have not seen the studies, but it is a blow to morale to see only certain folks get raises, particularly those in the executive positions.
672	Across the board is needed to catch up. Shortage categories would benefit from an MBP approach.
673	I am not familiar with how these market conditions affect the State's ability to finance it's emplyees.
674	I think it is appropriate. It really helped to be able to higher in my job class which is an Internal Auditor
675	Not informed enough to answer
676	I am glad the Murkowski administration is over. Market Based Pay doesn't work for a State Agency.
677	Murkowski made sure the people who worked directly under him got large pay increases, but the people who performed and did the leg work received nothing. I think Murkowski got his priorities wrong.
678	no opinion -- not enough knowledge of issue
679	some people or jobs don't fall into "markets"
680	I'm nearing retirement and currently turning down job opportunties in the private sector that have simular responsibilties with more pay (25 to 40% more. They want my State expirence and are willing to pay for it. If I was 5 years younger I would leave state employment. There goes 20+ years of expirence and training....
681	Unfair practice
682	It resulted in pay raises for commissioners and directors and nothing for state workers.
683	This is nothing but a "winners and losers" policy. If state salaries had kept up with inflation the past 10 years, this would be a mute point. What has happened is that the lucky few positions that qualify for a pay raise "make back" part of the salary they have lost to inflation. Other state employees get nothing. This seems to be inherently unfair to me.
684	It does not address the larger issue that all state employees are valuable and contribute the success of the state and not just a select few that are in a particular job that happens to be in demand today.
685	I think this would be fine if it there was a "market analysis" for all the positions. I took a very large pay cut from the private sector to work here.
686	I think it tends to create divisiveness and discontent in the work force in general.
687	My job was increased two steps after HR did a study of the entire librarian class, as requested by the state librarian. I do not know if they used this Market Based Pay approach to see if librarians were underpaid in Alaska, but however they did it, my salary certainly went up.
688	I think they are fair but would like to see across the board wage increases since we haven't had major increases for too long.
689	I think you need both. Market pay to attract profession level employees, cost of living to keep up with the market.
690	I do not feel it is a fair representation of the importance and need of other job classifcations in meeting Department objectives. Picking and choosing who recieves raises creates a false heirarchy. It takes a group effort to accomplish Department goals and objectives - everyone should recieve benefit for playing their part.
691	I believe across the board wage increases are needed in order to hire and retain qualified people. in the
692	This has been terrible for morale, and seems to have been applied in a subjective, "at the whim of the Governor" manner.
693	Most of Murkowski's pay increases were to directors and commissioners! I support across the board increase.
694	As a person who has tried to attract or locate qualified techs, in my opinion it has merit.
695	The market based pay study did not address the overreaching problem of wages not keeping up with cost of living increases. Market Based Pay studies may be appropriate in some cases, but an across the board "real" pay increase for all state employees is long overdue.
696	A poor result of the study. I have had a great deal of difficulty recruiting positions. I am loosing staff to other state agencies that can not recruit off the street.
697	mixed - believe it necessary for some fields but not to the detriment of raising base salaries for other job classifications
698	If you are going to use a market based approach then it should be applicable to all, not just some, job classes.
699	This processes is only selective to certain job classes. I believe there should be across the board wage increases.
700	I don't know much about it, but "market conditions" probably don't apply to many necessary state functions where we're not really competing with the private sector, but rather doing things the private sector can't or won't do.
701	I was taught to never use bad langauge.
702	I believe it is ethically irresponsble. Market conditions can be manipulated by the powers that be through unetical practices.
703	The Palin Administration should conduct system wide pay study that includes private sector and other state and munipal government eployees.
704	I believe across the board would be better but if they are going to continue with market based pay they should use better data. The IT market based pay was rejected based on the data they collected however our experience shows that we are not competitive.
705	I believe this is a legitimate method for ensuring competitive salary/work in order to hire and retain a workforce in often very competitive jobs. Across the board increases are not effective in recruiting for highly educated professionals which we've lost in past years due to low salaries and benefits.
706	It should be changed to across the board wage increases.
707	Looks/sounded good to me.
708	Not certain of facts for all job classes. Not certain that across the board pay raises are called for. Many in my field are looking for work elsewhere because of pay inequities.
709	Pay increases should be based on specific data collection...difficult to generalize broad wage increases.
710	The criteria were designed with unrealistically high hurdles.
711	unfair to classified employees. It is hard to attract employees to all levels, not just exempth positions. same bogus arguememnt the legislature used to bump up their salaries a few years ago but then said not enough money for us.
712	No opinion
713	No opinion
714	A beginning approach to balancing pay for like positions in public and private sectors.
715	I think this can be helpfuland provide a better comparison of what is being paid in the market and thereby consider how to compete. However, as I outlined in number 4, it has not been equitable across the board thus far for those of us who are registered nurses who are in positions requiring nursing degrees-without a nursing title, we seemed to be offering out nursing expertise, bearing the responsbility, but not recognized for it from a pay and benefits perspective. The downside of market based pay is that the state will never want to be the leader in pay, and thus will chose to never pay at the top of the pay ranges and will go instead for the mean. Thus the impact on pay will not generally always bear out.
716	I am Ok with that as I am professional staff and falling behind in effective pay.
717	I don't know much about it, but I do know he gave healthy raises to his staff, but bit and clawed over our raises, which ended up really costing us money. Not Fair
718	the "market based pay" studies do not appear to be used for all classifications, only the upper ranges, it's time for across the board wage increases.
719	While the market based pay studies do help address the under market salaries for certain job classes, they create salary inequities between job classes that have similar duties and responsibilities. Across the board wage increases would be better - it is difficult to recruit and maintain staff at all levels of government. The lower range jobs need the wage increases as much as some of the upper end jobs that are getting market based increases.
720	I liked it. Some jobs are worth more than others based on educational and professional requirements. A scientist with an advanced degree should not be making the same as skilled labor with nothing more than a GED. That said, all positions need an increase across the board to make up for the cost of living. I see the 2 as separate but equal issues.
721	Has Merit, but undoubtedly has been misused to accomplish alterior motives.
722	I'm not too familiar with this, but it seems to make sense to pay salary based on occupation instead of accross the board salary schedules.
723	Prefer that to across the board.
724	What ever works to get a pay increase
725	Don't know much about it, to give an opinion.
726	very unfair to the average workers
727	I think it is working but not fast enough.
728	For now is okay, some classifications are behind the normal range of pay for other facilities in the country.
729	I believe the concept is good. However, I am not familiar enough with how it has actually been implemented to have an informed opinion. It certainly hasn't done any good for my division in 4 years.
730	Everyone job class deserves the same treatment.
731	I don't believe in that everyone that works hard deserves pay increases, but people that don't work hard shouldn't receive pay increases till they inprove their work ethics.
732	Nothing Governor Murkowski did for State Employees was good.
733	Who's market? and who is doing the studies? Admin, Hah!
734	I occupy a Nursing position, the market based studie found that positions needed a two step bump. Of course that did not happen until the very end of his administration and it still only brought those positions up to just below pay of other like positions in the community. So pay still lags behind and attracting people into positions remains difficult. Especially with the new tier IV retirement plan that is a dis-incentive to be employed by the state.
735	The administration chose to only do studies they wanted rather in a logical and open manner, and the studies were poorly conducted and biased.
736	Haven't read the studies so can't provide an opinion at present.
737	I have benefitted from the Murkowski market based pay studies but it has caused very hard feelings with other co-workers who have not.
738	Some of this is good, but they need to look at all positions.
739	This was a bad idea.
740	I don't know much about it, but I would expect it's not exactly a "progressive" agenda item coming from his failed administration.
741	Bad idea!
742	Don't know much about this
743	Studies can be done that can say whatever you want them to say. I know that the State of Alaska is can't compete with other entities in my field as far as salary and benefit are concerned. We have people leaving our employment at an alarming rate.
744	Wrong. What about jobs in social services that you can't really classify. Some jobs it is not about how many of something are produced. It is about the care and experience you as an individual bring to the job.
745	It would require that section of any contract to be as fluid as "market conditions" and pertain to any number of job classes as conditions for job classes change.
746	Like most everything about the Murkowski administration, it makes no sense and is a bad idea.
747	not familiary wnough with the differences to give an eduacated answer
748	idiotic
749	not sure
750	They need to do both. To keep with inflation all positions needed to be raised. But some positions lagged even further behind the private sector and as such made it extremely hard to attract and keep personnel.

751	no opinion.
752	I don't believe it is fair.
753	I think that is democracy. Supply and demand. Teachers ought to learn about it.
754	It appears that it was the governors attempt to be pro-employee, when in fact it was a ploy. In my opinion it was a joke and a quick fix to show he was doing something.
755	Viable approach but not sure how it would impact me specifically.
756	Reasonable, particularly in health care.
757	With MBP studies, it's likely that it might be easy to go out and find the numbers that you're looking for as compared to a completely objective study. Also, there will always be nuances of any given situation that will simply not be exposed in a general, one-size-fits-all study.
758	Don't know much about it. It sounds like a strange concept.
759	I think it stinks and some of the State employees would work for less pay with the most high need populations. If a person wants private sector pay and benefits, then let them apply for those jobs. Civil service is about public service, protection, and accountability. "Divide and Conquer" comes to mind, and that I believe does not align with the intent of civil service or government ethics and accountability.
760	Cronie Idea
761	Perhaps it will provide an opening for other job classes that can also demonstrate disparate pay between public and private sectors. To be honest, I'm not certain across the board wage increases is fair.
762	Wage increases should be across the board, period.
763	I think that there is some merit in Market Based Pay, and some in across the board. Certain positions require personnel that are in high demand in other areas, certainly this is the case for higher level positions (managers, engineers, and higher level environmental specialists) in ADEC. In these cases, across the board wage increases will not address problems in attracting and retaining personnel. These positions need to be classified at higher salary ranges.
764	It seems unfair that the SOA commisioners are amongst the highest paid in the nation while the SOA employees (at least in fish and game) are amongst the lowest.
765	It creates huge divisions in the workplace. As an engineer, I have received 2 pay increases since 2000, while the other professionals I work with have received none. This is very bad for morale and creates resentment. I think that you could combine across the board wage increases with a basis of market conditions, i.e., everyone would get a raise, but not necessarily all the same amount.
766	I believe it makes sense.
767	No comment
768	A slick political maneuver to avoid giving state employees an equitable salary.
769	I'm not in favor of the Murkowski administrations use of “Market Based Pay” studies to only increase pay for certain job classifications based on “market conditions” , rather than across the board. Wage increase should be across the board.
770	I think pay should reflect what the market is paying for that particular job.
771	It was partial recognition of a problem and only partly solved it. The problem still remains for some positions and classifications.
772	Support
773	They should have bumped everyone up not just certain job classes. Everyone has struggled with finances and no one should be singled out.
774	I trust very little that transpired during that time frame.
775	Isn't fair. Should be done for all classes rather than only those that relate to resource edevlopment.
776	Does not address the impact of inflation on wages.
777	I think that there is some validity to it.
778	In so far as nurses are concerned given the recruitment difficulties my agency has, I support the Murkowski administration's use of market based pay. I believe this theory could be applied to other job classes including my own to my benefit.
779	On the whole I agree with this but I am concerned that if everyone doesn't get some increase one will set up a class system within organizations. The problem I see is that the state is so far behind in terms of compensation, having only some people catch up (as has happened with appointed positions) sets up huge disparities within the system.
780	As an engineer I'm fine with it, however, it does not deal with the fact the cost of living in Alaska has far outpaced the wages the state provides.
781	Don't know the specifics other than the past administration worked to systematically dimantle state agencies.
782	Seems unfair however I do believe that it is okay to have raises based on performance rather then just length ofservice.
783	I think that it needs work.
784	If you are in the job class, it is a great thing. If you are not, and continue to have troubles recruiting and retaining employees, it is extraordinarily frustrating.
785	Good idea.
786	This is a good idea. However, I would like to see how the admin. position study comes out before passing final judgment on the process.
787	Good: Addresses market reality for some classes. Bad: Creates strain in workplace when some it and some don't.
788	Actually, I think it makes sense. My understanding that the problem with the salary surveys is they were conducted within the state system, and did not assess how state salaries compared with private. In my field as an environmental program manager, it is clear we would make more in private - but when our salaries were assessed it was against similar work in DNR and DFG, not private.
789	Not familiar with this
790	I do not know enough about this to comment.
791	Poor or inappropriate criteria were chosen in the comparisons I am aware of.
792	is ok..
793	I am in favor.
794	We need and across the board wage increase to keep up with inflation.
795	It creates out of order hierarchies within the organization where subordinates are working in higher wage grades than their supervisors or similiar counterparts.
796	All employees need a suitable salary in Alaska. It is an expensive state to live in, but the Murkowski "Spin" that an accross the board increase is undesirable is probably correct. A market based salary study should be performed, but as I stated above, a minimum suitable salary must be established. It is highly undesirable for State employees to have to maintain second or third jobs to provide a minimumally desirable lifestyle. I find it highly unsatisfactory that Murkowski increased salaries for retired judges and commissioners and directors (that he appointed), but sees fit to downgrade the necessity of regular SS and GGU employees. The increases provided to the Marine Unions were uncalled for.
797	makes sense
798	My opinion is that while it is a useful tool in filling certain positions, we need to be taking a systemic viewpoint in regards to the whole civil service. We want to obtain and retain highly qualified employees to do the work of the people of the State of Alaska. While such measures may be appropriate in the short term, thay fail to address the long term issues that have led us to the point we need to take such short term measures.
799	It is very disruptive in an environment that one has to work with multiple disciplines.
800	good start
801	I like it.
802	I think the concept is good, but the study needs to be realistic. The recent study missed the mark for engineers and surveyors. Engineers got an increase, but not enough to compare to the private sector. Surveyors didn't get an increase, but should have, based on our inability to recruit and retain.
803	poor
804	Need to have across the broad wage increase be earned by years of service and not what is expected of us in outcome of work.
805	I'm very glad that Murkowski is gone. I'm disturbed that, for example,the engineer class is paid so much and the biologists are paid dirt wages WITH master degrees and a few PhDs. The pay scale is so lacking that private sector is so much more appealing to potential employees.
806	Need acrossed the board increases.
807	I agree strongly with the "market based pay" studies.
808	It was the right idea, but was flawed in that it did not include increases for job classes that were below market and did not include increases in pay that briought job classes up to market. The system of trying to fit all state job classes into one basic pay schedule is inherently flawed.
809	A sham! VR manager earn twice as much in private sector
810	Across the board, better than nothing. We are currently below market for degrees and like jobs in lower 48.
811	It works for the guys who are in highly demanding jobs...but otherwise it's like being on Active Duty...cooks and electronic techs get the same pay but the jobs are no where near equal
812	Skewed! We may be able to hire in some of the other job classes - but we are settling for poor workers.
813	This may be the only way to keep a competent work force, especially in technical or specialized areas.
814	It's going to hurt us in the long run.
815	He voted for him and all the directors to get a raise in pay, but all of us workers that make them look good, did not get any extra pay. I hated Murkowski and what he did with our state.
816	ineffective. we need to stand togther. a UNION is all of us!
817	I feel it is ridiculous because they are inaccurate. State workers are not paid market based pay as it is, any of us could go to private industry and make more money. Raises should be given to make the state more competitive in the job field so that we can attract quality employees.
818	Good
819	Am not familiar with the study. Believe that my job class is underpaid, as is the A/P series in general.
820	I am not sure, but I believe that they must have used data from years ago to compare the market to the state's wages for the lower ranges. Upper ranges tend to be OVER-paid.
821	Should be across the board.
822	It's a bad joke!...an expensive joke!
823	The studies are a step in the right direction and have helped to reduce some of the disparities between the public & private sectors. There are however many job classifications (planners, environmental personnel, etc.) for which state salaries remain significantly below the private sector.
824	I don't beleive that these are always apllicable to public sector occupations.
825	Good idea
826	The state's job class pay range system has gotten seriously out of alignment with the private sector, some job classes more than others. The Murkowski administration may or may not have made good decisions about which job classes to increase, but in theory I support adjustments based on real data from "market based pay studies" IN ADDITION TO across the board wage increases.
827	Market based pay is totally appropriate because it will allow the state to attract and retain good quality employees (among other reasons)
828	I am suspect of any Murkowski administration studies. And I also suspect that higher classifications and px employees would be the usual beneficiaries of such increases in pay.
829	Some of the fields need adjustment as far as pay range in addition to across the board COLA increases, not to mention geographic diff.
830	Several subordinates benifited although I did not.
831	They have totally destroyed the classification system and were not done to all job classifications that should have had them done.
832	Works good.
833	doesn't make sense in government-based services
834	Many departments still down match comparable , federal and private sector jobs (DNR, Div. Forestry)
835	I think it's bad for everyone. The market is a poor indicator of public employees' value. Public services should never be measured by what the market will bear; public services are for everyone's benefit.
836	I support this position as long as the market is comparable.
837	like to see everyone get raise, but it is better than no one getting a raise
838	Not up on this issue.
839	I think the administration eventually discover that market conditions will drive them to the same outcome as across the board wage increases -- it just takes longer.
840	I think there are some job classifications that are specific to state employment that may not be included in this "Market Based Pay" study. I believe state employees should be paid according to their job classification and job classifications should be specific to the required duties of each job/organization.
841	It needs improvement and isn't fair to all job classes.
842	Murkowski was not the best governor we have had. Maybe not in the top 100.
843	I'm not familiar with that practice.
844	Did not agree with it.
845	It's a popularity contest.
846	No comment.
847	Some jobs may be more out of line and should have higher increases. All positions should be competitive with the private sector.
848	I thought the operative words were internal alignment. Only the favored few got Market Based Pay. Everyone else were by the public testiomony of the Dvision of Pernonnel paid less than federal employees and much much less than the private sector in Alaska or much of the lower 48.
849	I admit I do not know as much about them as I should, but I not necessarily opposed to them. I do know that I have trouble hiring clerks because the wages are too low. Something needs to be done.
850	Any progress to address wage issues is preferrable to no progress. However, these changes do little to address the overall issue. Additionally, because only a few job classes have been addressed, staff in other job classes (sometimes with the same professional background as those included)are feeling even less valued and respected.
851	This met the needs of particular administrators but was not fair to all employees whose pay is not market based.
852	He took care of the select few he wanted to.
853	It was a good idea since why would you pay someone more that the market would bear? The other way the state is losing those indivuals and unable to replace.
854	It is a valid tool for pay reveiw
855	Don't like it.
856	He obviously didn't check these for all State job classes - he did increase the pay for his political appointed Directors/Commissioners though... "Some animals are more equal than others." B.S.
857	I think it should be an across the board wage increase.
858	Absolutely wrong..and only addressed the higher paid appointees.
859	Across the board wage increases are needed, but there are definitely some job classes that are way under paid, more than would ever be done across the board. Some approach like market based pay is a good idea for some job classes.
860	I desagree! I am an adult PO who is OT inelgible. We can't even get our Dept. to adhere to the Federal regulations on OT for our job class.
861	Market based pay would take too much to implement. I believe that if we all belong to the same union, we should all reap the same benefits
862	I thought it was a good idea.
863	I have not studied issue. Not acceptable if market includes depressed income areas (mid-west & southern US).
864	Let the market determine pay along with the employee's training, education, and experience.
865	I don't think it's fair. Many of my subordinates work very hard and don't get paid what they're worth.
866	bad idea and unfair, across the board more equitable
867	I think market conditions and pay should dictate what we are paid because people leave based on what they can get elsewhere. If you don't get paid more elsewhere, than a payraise is not warranted.
868	I do not agree with this at all. Wages are not keeping up with inflation across all areas of the state not just in certain job classes.
869	No opinion
870	Not familiar enough with it to comment.
871	Market Based Pay studies are a start but tend to focus more easily on certain "professional" positions such as nurses and engineers. Either change/expand the criteria to reflect the hiring difficulties we have every day or move towards across the board pay.
872	As an engineer, it has kept me working for the State. However, many of our other employees at DOT are grossly underpaid per their private counterparts, and turn over often. They work hard, and have tremendous expertise.
873	I'm not familiar enough with this to comment.
874	In the law field it might help get good workers as they can usually go to the private sector and get more pay.
875	If you look at all the job classes, then we would probably all get a raise. I do feel that the Nurse's really did need to get the raise they got. Fortunately our budget was increased as well. Whenever raises are determined to be necessary, we should receive appropriate funding from the Legislature. We are forced to absorb enough in our budgets.
876	They probably cherry pick the jobs that they want to "study"
877	This methodology was used in the recent classification study of the Grants Administrator series. The administration originally proposed lowering the Grants Administrator II and III levels from ranges 17 and 19, respectively, to 16 and 18. After their analysis based on market conditions, the decision was made to keep the current ranges. This may also have been due to all of the affected departments expressing strong disagreement with the proposed change in pay ranges.
878	Not familiar with it. If it uses the Alaska job market, I would likely support it.
879	Hate it.
880	Like most Murkowski ideas, it sucked!
881	Market Based Pay is a definite improvement. Is is difficult to draw applicants for professional positions such as engineers when we are not competing with adequate salaries. Without the market based pay, some professionals need to leave to find competitive salaries or that profession may need to start a separate bargaining group versus being lumped together with all the other occupation groups with one large union. If this bargaining group really wanted to support their members and earn our dues, they should endorse the market based pay concept.
882	My position as a State Fish biologist doen't ever get much from "Market based Pay" because I feel all natural resurce biologist are under paid. As an Alaskan I know our natural resources are our most important asset and thats one reason why I work for State F&G even though I would get paid more for doing a lower level job for USFWS. I disagree with Market Based Pay.
883	It may be necessary in special cases, however, it shouldn't be substituted for across the board wage increases that may bring the State back toward being a competitive employer
884	stupid, we're in Alaska
885	It is a good way to justify increases because it considers the worker's fair market value and it can tbe defended when justifying it to the administration, private industry and the public. There is a problem though with our salary schedule because the ranges above are compressed, i.e. the percentage diffference between ranges is not the same above range 25. This does not happen in industry. That is why our Governor and the commissioners should increase so the ranges below them are compressed.
886	Not good
887	It's better than nothing. But what's the point if when the study gets the obvious result that the pay for a group needs to be higher the state decides it can't afford to pay the higher salaries and then chooses not to implement the recommendations, i.e. the IT positions?
888	There was not much about the Murkowski administration I agreed with.
889	Mixed emotions. I certainly see areas where the state needs work on being more compeditive but it leaves the grunt workers out.
890	Not familiar enought with study to comment
891	No comment!
892	I don't have a good opinion at all of Murkowski's plan. It (he) has made it so those of us in the Bush are "secondary" people, with little consideration.
893	Not familiar enough with it to say
894	No comment.
895	Avoids the issue that the overall salary schedule
896	I do not know enough about this to answer. I do believe in appropriate compensation for the work/experience/certification the employee provides.

email us with feedback

Return to Main Survey Page

Last Updated January 14, 2007