| Course | MT203 Human Resource Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Compensation analysis |
| Length | About 880 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT203 Unit 8
A Dollar and a Quarter for Eight Technicians: A Unit 8 Compensation Analysis at a Pool Service Company
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT203: Human Resource Management
Unit 8 Compensation Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Bluebonnet Pool Care, its jobs, pay rates and survey figures are composite and illustrative; bracketed figures stand where the company's payroll and the survey would supply the numbers; the sources cited are real.
The Problem
Bluebonnet Pool Care pays service technicians an average of [$19.50] an hour and route supervisors [$20.75]. A supervisor's job adds eight technicians, route rebalancing on bad days, the hardest customer calls and repair approvals, but it also removes the technician's overtime, since supervisors are expected to finish their work within regular hours. Two technicians who were offered supervisor roles this spring calculated that they would earn less in a year, and both said no.
Milkovich et al. (2014) describe two separate questions in pay design: internal alignment, meaning how jobs inside the company relate to each other, and external competitiveness, meaning how pay compares with the market. Bluebonnet has a problem with both.
Job Evaluation
Six jobs were evaluated: helper, service technician, repair technician, chemical warehouse associate, dispatcher and route supervisor. Each was scored on four factors with stated weights: skill, 40 percent, covering knowledge of water chemistry, equipment and scheduling; responsibility, 30 percent, covering supervision of others, customer impact and spending authority; effort, 15 percent, covering physical and mental demands; and working conditions, 15 percent, covering heat, chemicals and driving. Each factor has five degrees, and points are the degree multiplied by the weight.
The results, out of 500 points, were: helper [180], chemical warehouse associate [215], service technician [290], dispatcher [300], repair technician [335] and route supervisor [390]. Route supervisor ranks first, mainly on responsibility, where it reaches the highest degree, and on skill, since supervisors must know water chemistry and routing.
Pay Survey
The survey matched each job to market data from two sources. The first was federal wage data for the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington metropolitan area (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2025), matched by occupation: helpers to helpers of installation and repair workers, technicians and repair technicians to maintenance and repair categories, dispatchers to dispatchers, and route supervisors to first-line supervisors of mechanics, installers and repairers. The second was [nine] current postings from competing pool companies, each matched to an internal job with a note on how closely the duties align.
The federal categories are broad, so the postings carried more weight where they matched closely. A first-line supervisor category, for example, includes supervisors of auto mechanics and elevator installers, whose pay runs higher than pool work would support, so the survey used the category's 25th percentile rather than its median for the route supervisor match. The survey's median market rates were: helper [$16.80], warehouse associate [$17.90], service technician [$19.80], dispatcher [$20.40], repair technician [$24.10] and route supervisor [$27.50].
Comparing Internal Pay to the Market
Plotting points against market rates produces a fairly straight pay line, rising about [$0.05] for each point. Most Bluebonnet jobs sit close to the line. Technicians are paid at about 98 percent of market and helpers at about 101 percent. Route supervisors are the clear exception, paid at about 75 percent of the market rate for their points. Repair technicians sit at about 92 percent.
The gap explains the refused promotions. A technician who works [six] hours of overtime a week through the [26]-week season earns about [$4,560] in overtime pay. A supervisor at [$20.75] with no overtime earns about [$2,600] more in base pay over a year than a technician, so the promotion would leave a technician who works the summer overtime almost [$2,000] a year worse off.
The supervisor job ranked first on every factor and was paid as if it ranked fourth.
Proposed Structure
The proposal sets a range for each job, from 90 to 115 percent of the market rate. Route supervisors would move to a range of [$24.75 to $31.60], with current supervisors placed at [$25.50] and a minimum differential of [$4.00] over the highest-paid technician they supervise. Repair technicians would move to at least 95 percent of market. Other jobs stay where they are, since they already sit near the line.
The supervisor range also needs a rule about overtime. Supervisors will remain eligible for overtime only on days they run a route themselves to cover an absence, which happens about [ten] days a season. That keeps the role from becoming a pay cut in the weeks when it is hardest, and it removes the incentive to avoid covering routes.
Gerhart and Rynes (2003) note that pay differences between levels signal what an organization values and affect whether people seek promotion. A [$4.00] differential tells technicians that taking on eight colleagues is worth more than overtime.
Cost
Raising the [six] route supervisors to [$25.50] costs about [$59,000] a year at 2,080 hours each. Bringing the [nine] repair technicians to 95 percent of market costs about [$13,000]. The total of about [$72,000] is about [2.1] percent of the company's payroll. Against it sit the cost of supervisor vacancies, which this summer were filled by the owner himself, and the risk of losing the two technicians who refused the role to a competitor that would promote them.
References
Gerhart, B., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Compensation: Theory, evidence, and strategic implications. Sage.
Milkovich, G. T., Newman, J. M., & Gerhart, B. (2014). Compensation (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2025). May 2024 metropolitan and nonmetropolitan area occupational employment and wage estimates: Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_19100.htm
The Purdue Global MT203 Unit 8 instructions
Unit 8 usually asks you to analyze pay for a set of jobs and propose a structure. Most prompts expect a job evaluation, a market comparison and a recommendation with costs. Point-factor plans are common because they show why one job ranks above another, but ranking and classification methods may also be accepted. The pay survey should explain where the market data came from and how each outside job was matched to an internal one. Many sections ask for a pay line or chart and ranges for each job. Internal alignment and external competitiveness are the two ideas most texts use to organize the analysis. Composite figures are fine when labeled. The recommendation should solve a specific problem, such as compression or turnover, and state what it costs. Five pages with tables and a chart is typical in your own submission, with APA 7 sources.
How this MT203 Unit 8 example is built
The analysis opens with the refused promotions and frames the problem with Milkovich and colleagues' two questions of internal alignment and external competitiveness. The job evaluation scores six jobs on four weighted factors, and a margin note explains why showing points and weights lets a reader check the ranking. The survey matches jobs to Bureau of Labor Statistics categories and competitor postings, using the 25th percentile where a federal category is broader than pool work. A comparison section finds most jobs near market and route supervisors far below it, then works out the overtime arithmetic that left a promoted technician almost $2,000 a year worse off. The highlighted line states the gap between rank and pay. The proposal sets ranges, a $4.00 differential and a rule for overtime on covered routes, with Gerhart and Rynes on what pay gaps signal, and the cost section totals about $72,000.
MT203 Unit 8 rubric: what earns full points
Compensation analyses are typically graded on method transparency and on whether the recommendation fixes the stated problem. A job evaluation earns credit when factors, weights and points are shown, so a reader can follow the ranking. The pay survey should name its sources and explain each match, since poor matches are the most common source of error. Comparing internal pay with the market, ideally through a pay line, shows the writer can find where the structure breaks. The recommendation is judged on fit: here it must make the supervisor job worth taking, which means addressing overtime as well as base pay. Costs should be calculated, not estimated loosely, and set against the cost of doing nothing. Clear tables and a pay line a reader can check also count, and the BLS wage file belongs in the reference list next to the two compensation books.
Common MT203 Unit 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Compensation papers often go wrong by comparing jobs to the market without first evaluating them internally, which leaves no basis for the structure. Another frequent problem is a pay survey built from one salary website with no explanation of the matches. Some writers propose raises without calculating what they cost. Others solve compression in base pay and forget overtime or bonuses, which can reverse the result, exactly as it did for the technicians here. Benefits are sometimes ignored entirely, though they matter in total rewards. Be careful with broad federal categories, which can overstate or understate a small company's market. If you use your own employer, change names and round figures. Describe the jobs and the pay problem you see, and our writers can help you score the jobs, match market data and cost a structure that addresses it.
Get an MT203 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Pay analyses depend on the jobs involved, so list the roles the Unit 8 case covers, or roles at a workplace you know, with the rubric attached. A point-factor evaluation, a matched pay survey and a costed structure arrive within 24-48h, figures bracketed as composite. The first sample is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT203 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT203 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- MT203 Unit 2: Job Analysis
- MT203 Unit 3: Recruitment Plan
- MT203 Unit 4: Selection Method Comparison
- MT203 Unit 5: Employment Law Brief
- MT203 Unit 6: Training Needs Assessment
- MT203 Unit 7: Performance Appraisal Exercise
- MT203 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- MT203 Unit 10: HR Case Analysis
- MT202 Unit 8: Account Follow-Up Plan
- MT140 Unit 8: Team Communication Brief
- MT106 Unit 8: Networking Plan
- MT102 Unit 8: Customer Experience Audit
MT203 Unit 8 questions, answered
Where do the market rates come from?
From federal occupational wage estimates for the metro area and a small set of competitor postings, both bracketed as composite in the example. The survey section shows how each outside job was matched to an internal one by duties rather than title. In a case study, whatever market data the prompt supplies takes the place of both sources.
Where can I find a free MT203 Unit 8 sample paper?
This page holds a full MT203 Unit 8 compensation analysis for a pool service company. It scores six jobs with a point-factor plan, compares pay with regional market data, proposes ranges and a supervisor differential, costs them and includes margin notes.
Why use a point-factor plan instead of ranking the jobs?
Ranking is quicker but cannot show why one job sits above another or by how much. Scoring every job on the same four factors lets a reader see that route supervisor leads mainly on responsibility and skill.
Why would a promotion leave a technician worse off in the sample?
Technicians earn about $4,560 in summer overtime, while the supervisor job adds only about $2,600 in base pay and ends overtime. The net loss of nearly $2,000 a year explains why two technicians said no.
Why does the proposal keep overtime for supervisors on some days?
Supervisors who run a route to cover an absence stay eligible for overtime that day. That keeps the role from becoming a pay cut in the hardest weeks and removes any reason to avoid covering routes.