Agenda - Council - 05/12/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE WAGES AND BENEFITS FOR EXEMPT EMPLOYEES By: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator Background: Enclosed fOr. yoUr review are point and comparison sheets for the exempt wage consideration for 1992 (ShoWn With Personnel Coordinator adjustment),, Up to this point, Council has forestalled considerati0t5 of~: this package in that it was hoped that the AFSCME package and the exempt · package cooled be done at the same time. As you are aware, AFSCME recently filed for mediation with the firSl~ me/eting scheduled for 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 19, 1992. It is contemplated that there may b~' seV~eral sessions with the mediator in that AFSCME and management appear to be some distanqe apart. You will also note that the proposal to AFSCME was a 5.6% personnel budget inc~eose and a 5.24% wage increase of which 3.19% was a comparable worth increase reflecting yeors, class and market adjustments. The balance of 2.05% was for performance and goals. The eXerript proposal in front of you this evening is a 4.72% personnel budget increase and a 4.47% in¢~'teas¢ in payroll. It is the management position that the exempt package compares favorably witch the AFSCME package as originally proposed by management and it includes the performance~functions which Council has stated as a priority within the pay plan for 1992. In considering Whet-her this package should be passed by Council, I have noted the following: 1) There appears to be agreement within the group on the package as presented. 2) The:,gl'oup is concerned within this contract year as well as with future contract years that they' not ge relegated to a position of waiting for an AFSCME agreement or an agreement with any Other labor union in that they do not have an ability to control the settlement, or lackithere0f, of any particular group other than their own. 3) It was. suggested by members of the exempt group that if AFSCME does not eventually settle for the performance package, as presented, that this may in fact be as positive as the alternative in that it will allow for the exempt folks to be a test group. 4) As reported previously, it is important to show publicly that the City Council and the Department Managers are in support of performance pay. 5) The ~ir~crease attributable to tenure, class and market are below the adjustments that are being made in other cities in this year. Concerns relative to settlement or reasons for restraint or delay in settlement include: 1) 2) AFscME iwill attempt to peg their eventual increase on the entire exempt package as well as the LELS package and not just the package attributable to tenure class and market, although I believe from a management perspective, this is defensible. As likely-as not, the AFSCME package will result in a lower cost than management previously offered in that without the performance plan, Council has suggested that we would~ ~[°ff-er just~ a cost of hvlng' ' increase commensurate with what the other Stanton V cities between 10,000 and 20,000 are offering in this year which equates to approximately 2.5%. Theref'ore¢ it might be perceived that the exempt package is too high, however, again the tenure, cla:Ss and market portion of the package is below, the Stanton cost of living adjustments and it is only due to the performance provisions that increases are suggested on averag~ abOve these levels. *Shown with Personnel Coordinator Adjustment