SUUVA / CWA » Articles » POLL PAY DEBATE-WCAV TV, OCTOBER 23, 2007

Home \| About \| Articles \| Resources \| Photos \| Contact	Getting Started with SUUVA
WELCOME FACULTY! BECOME A UNION MEMBER! SUUVA/CWA IS NOW INVITING FACULTY TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR CLASSIFIED STAFF BY SIGNING A MEMBERSHIP CARD OR JOINING ONLINE. THERE IS STRENGTH IN NUMBERS. HELP GIVE STAFF A VOICE!

POLL PAY DEBATE-WCAV TV, OCTOBER 23, 2007

Posted: Tuesday October 23, 2007

Poll Pay Debate

Posted: 6:39 PM Oct 23, 2007
Last Updated: 7:46 PM Oct 23, 2007
Reporter: Lindsey Ward
Email Address: lindsey.ward@wcav.tv

Poll Pay Debate

October 23, 2007

Anyone working the polls on Election Day is paid by the state and by their employer, but now Charlottesville Registrar says UVa employees manning the polls on November 6th are being asked to reimburse the university for their missed day of work. This means everyone locally gets paid for helping with elections, except those employed by UVa

Each worker is paid $10.72 an hour, plus their employers still pays their normal salary.

“The university now is telling them that if the leave that they take as an election official is charged as civil then the employees are required to reimburse the state which means they want me to take the pay I would give them and pay the university for their time,” said Sherri Iachetta, Charlottesville Registrar.

However, UVa says that’s state policy and because they are state workers they aren’t entitled to the double pay everyone else gets to pocket. “As public employees it would be inappropriate to use tax dollars to pay them twice for the same day of service,” said Susan Carkeek, Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, in a written statement.

Iachetta says this is wrong. In 2005 the General Assembly voted to protect the employment rights of election poll workers making it illegal for employers to fire or punish anyone choosing to be an election official.

She says this decision was intended to help localities find and keep much need poll workers.

“The General Assembly must have thought this was very important in order to have passed a bill saying this in 2005, so it’s very recent and they must have thought it was very important to help out the localities,” Iachetta said.

At this point it’s a conflict in state policy and both are waiting for a decision from the Attorney General.

The request for the Attorney General’s ruling on the matter was filed Monday. No word on exactly when a ruling will be made.