Case Scenario: Warp & Fill, Inc. (cont.)
Warp & Fill Inc. is a 200 employee manufacturer of industrial felts in northeast PA. Felts look like giant blankets and are used in manufacturing paper products. W&F began as a small, family owned business in 1951, and has grown steadily into its status today as a well-respected, profitable firm. Today, George Smith, who is the founder's son, runs the firm. Though it has grown over the years, George has managed to retain a family atmosphere about the place. Employees tend to be very loyal to the firm, and virtually all of them know each other's names. It is not unionized. Most employees feel that they can communicate openly and honestly with each other and top management about problems at work. Currently, however, they are facing a very difficult compensation issue. The problem centers around the pay levels of the loom operators (who are all men and number 30) relative to the burlers (who are all women and number 20). Loom operators weave the blankets. The position requires a high level of gross (or large movement) motor skill. The position of burler entails fixing knots in the blanket left from the loom. Burlers use knitting needles to do this, and the job requires highly developed fine (or small movement) motor skills. The gender breakdown of the positions in the market reflects that in the company. Loom operators are almost all male; burlers are almost all female. The company does not have a sophisticated job evaluation system at present. In place is a crude ranking system, which dates back about 25 years. The loom operator is ranked above the burler in their ranking system. The loom operators are also currently paid about $5,000 more on average than the burlers. The HR manager at W&F indicates that with the pay rates they offer, it is not difficult to fill either position with high-quality trainees. Several months ago, W&F Inc. hired a consultant to install a new job evaluation system. A variation of a fairly standard plan for this type of company was chosen, the National Industrial Manufacturing Association plan (NIMA). The consultant worked with their job evaluation committee to install the plan. The job evaluation committee of W&F performed a job evaluation of all benchmark jobs at the company. Burler and loom operator were included as benchmark jobs. Results of the job evaluation indicated that the burler and loom operator jobs merited about the same amount of points
The consultant next did a market pay survey of all benchmark positions. Included in the survey were companies in the felt making and similar businesses. Results of the pay survey indicated that the going market rate for burlers is about $5,000 less than the going rate for loom operators, which matches current company practice. Because of this, the compensation committee is considering decreasing the job evaluation points of the burler job, such that the current $5,000 differential is maintained. Mary Jones, the burler supervisor at W&F (and a former burler) was a member of the job evaluation committee. She is quite upset that the committee is considering re-evaluating the burler job. Mary is aware that the market analysis indicates that there is a $5,000 difference between the jobs, but says that the company should stick by the initial job evaluation results (she did not participate in the evaluation of the burler position). Her argument is that the job evaluation was accurate and fair; the burler is as important to the company's success as the loom operator. She indicated that the pay difference between loom operators and burlers has been a source of contention with the burlers for years. She has appealed to George (who has the final say), on the issue. Mary has been an exceptional and loyal employee. George doubts that she would ever quit or consider legal action over this. But, consistent with their culture, he takes her complaint quite seriously.
What do you advise him to do about the situation?