Contracts
"Keep What We Have"
Our past two contracts have been described as "keep what we have" contracts rather than getting gains type of contracts. This is not "just".
A major issue with our contracts is the dilution of the professional standard. When statistics are bandied about by negotiators, distortions occur because of the variables that are included in the statistics used.
Since the accounting field isn't regulated as it needs to be average incomes may be distorted e.g. a bookeeper may be described erroneously as an accountant and their incomes may rolled up in an average calculation. So are we receiving fair and just compensation? Since most AFS members in the accounting field are in possesion of an accounting designation, it makes sense to refer to survey's etc to see what the income levels are for those members.
Since the accounting field isn't regulated as it needs to be average incomes may be distorted e.g. a bookeeper may be described erroneously as an accountant and their incomes may rolled up in an average calculation. So are we receiving fair and just compensation? Since most AFS members in the accounting field are in possesion of an accounting designation, it makes sense to refer to survey's etc to see what the income levels are for those members.
Fill out the form to get your own copy of the salary survey information from Alberta (its an example of what I mean). The gap is wide and is getting wider.
Inequities In Pay - Professionals
Part of our strategy should be a public awareness and member awareness campaign illustrating the inequities in pay for professionals. However, we need to clarify that professionals meeting the professional standard are those in possession of a recognized accounting designation. This needs to be negotiated for and won if just contracts are to be enjoyed. click here for more information.
Recognizing the professional standard with a designation also gives the public and their representatives a higher expectation of getting the highest service standard possible through applied knowledge, skills and abilities.
Introduction to Coding
Coding is a scoring technique used to analyze interview data for evidence of competencies. Coding differs from rating in that it increases the reliability of evaluation by substituting strict rules for relative judgment. As in a court of law, circumstantial evidence is not sufficient for conviction, in an interview the candidate’s theory or generalization is not sufficient for presence of a competency. A person either did something or did not do something. In coding the evidence is either present or absent. There is no scope for inference or judgment on part of the interviewer.
Coding is based on coding categories, which are behavioral indicators. The behavioral indicators are from the interviews/observations of sample of job incumbents that are used to build the Competency Model for an organization. The indicators explicitly define those behaviors that are associated with a competency and are demonstrated by superior performers.
Competency Model
The Competency Model is made using only those behaviors that relate to superior performance on the job. If coders accept other evidence as codable data, then the validity of the method would be reduced.
Consider for example a statement, I usually seek the approval of my boss, and the behavioral indicator is ‘expresses a need or desire to persuade others’. The data does not point to what the candidate did on the particular occasion (the event) nor is there evidence that the candidate had a desire to persuade others, in this case the boss.