You know what? We never have. See: mail count.
I both agree and disagree.
I agree in that the current evaluated system has never really worked. I have said so on more than one occasion in the past. But there used to be enough extra time built into some standards that it made up for the standards which didn't give enough time. I believe that's no longer the case. The PO has whittled down the generous standards to the point that there is no longer any 'slop' built in to compensate for the standards which were too miserly.
This is the problem with the evaluated system in general. Assuming the Engineer Study turns out to be "fair and balanced," we will be fairly compensated in the future. The PO, however, will always be greatly incentivized to put downward pressure on individual standards while the Union will likely continue to offer a lame to nonexistent defense. Conversely, any time the Union pushes to raise any individual standard the PO will simply point to the Engineer Study as a perfectly valid reason to leave it as it is. In short, even further into the future we are inevitably going to end up exactly where we are now.
Going hourly won't fix this. I'm not all that familiar with the current city system (we wouldn't have to use that in going hourly anyway but there's certainly an argument to do so), but there are work/time standards built into that system as well. While the PO will certainly have to pay for the hours worked - whether one meets those hypothetical standards or not (which is certainly an improvement over the current system) - much more oversight and harassment will ensue over an hourly system. What's more, I don't see the union defending the standards in that system any more effectively than they have this one. So even
then we may end up in the same place we are now.
The only real answer to this problem is effective representation which would protect the time standards in
any system used and which I just don't see happening with the current union. Our Association has an institutional culture of mediocrity which is unlikely to ever change. For whatever reasons, and I'm sure they are manifold, the NALC seems to be very much more proactive in the representation of their members. While I'm sure they have plenty of their own warts, I believe switching to that organization would be our best bet in the very long term. Our current association will never willingly countenance such a dissolution of their gravy train.