“Yesterday afternoon, I submitted a request to Civil Service for the Layoff Avoidance Measure of withholding performance adjustment pay increases (or merit increases) for the upcoming year. I sincerely regret that this is necessary for a third year in a row, but I made this request to minimize the impact of budget pressures on our levels of staffing and on the agency.”
–Louisiana Workforce Commission executive director Curt Eysink, in a September 26 email to his employees informing them they would not be receiving 4 percent merit increases.
“I’m not going to cast a vote to set a precedent for one employee.”
–State Civil Service Commission member Scott Hughes, less than week later, speaking out against a proposed $19,430 annual pay increase (40.8 percent) for a Louisiana Workforce Commission mid-level manager. Despite Hughes’s opposition, the compliant Civil Service Board rubber stamped the pay increase from $47,570 to $67,000 for the employee described by Civil Service assistant director Jean Jones as barely meeting minimum job standards.
Louisiana Voice 
40.8%?! This wasn’t a pay adjustment due to increased workload, obviously. Aren’t those capped at 10%? What was this, then? I’m glad to read Hughes’ opposition statement (kudos to Hughes for having a rare sense of fairness), but I would love to know the reason for the request.
Personally, I have a real problem with rank and file state employees having been told for years now to do more with less, while mid-to-upper management is almost always asked pretty please with a cherry on top, in the form of at least a 5%, but often a 10%, pay increase. Nine times out of ten, they only become responsible for a larger work area, but they still push down the work.
Is there a way to take a look at pay adjustments that have been given for doing more with less at least since merit increases were discontinued?
Ah. I see I have the explanation in the next article.