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

Home

I I I I I I I I I '1 I I 1~92i WAGES ' By: Background~ ~ ' AND BENEFITS FOR EXEMPT EMPLOYEES Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator CASE Enclosed for g°ur review are point and comparison sheets for the exempt wage consideration for 1992 (ShoWnI with Personnel Coordinator adjustment), Up to this point, Council has forestalled consideratiol~ of t~is package in that it was hoped that the AFSCME package and the exempt package aould.[be dpne at the same time. As you are aware, AFSCME recently filed for mediation with the first gneet!ng scheduled for 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 19, 1992. It is contemplated that there may be ~vetgl sessions with the mediator in that AFSCME and management appear to be some distanCe~apart. You will also note that the proposal to AFSCME was a 5.6% personnel ~udget iacre'a~ aiid a 5.24% wage increase of which 3.19% was a comparable worth increase reflecting yea~, el~ass and market adjustments. The balance of 2.05% was for performance and goals. The ex~mptiproposal in front of you this evening is a 4.72% personnel budget increase and a 4.47% inCref~seii'i payroll. It is the management position that the exempt package compares favorably wi't~ theiAFSCME package as originally proposed by management and it includes the performance fimct~ons which Council has stated as a priority within the pay plan for 1992. In considering w}~eth~r this package should be passed by Council, I have noted the following: 1) There appea~rs to be agreement within the group on the package as presented. 2) The group is concerned within this contract year as well as with future contract years that they n~t beirelegated to a position of waiting for an AFSCME agreement or an agreement with ar~y Other labor union in that they do not have an ability to control the settlement, or lack thereof:, 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 fbr th~ perfom~ance package, as presented, that this may in fact be as positive as the alterna~ive,~ 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 Depm-tm. en! Managers are in support of performance pay. 5) The in~rea~e attributable to tenure, class and market are below the adjustments that are being rhade~in other cities in this year. Concerns relative to settlement or reasons for restraint or delay in settlement include: 1 ) AFSC ~1~ ~Will attempt to peg their eventual increase on the entire exempt package as well as the LELS p~ackage and not just the package attributable to tenure class and market, although I believe fr6m a management perspective, this is defensible. 2) As lik;ly ,~s not, the AFSCME package will result in a lower cost than management previogslY Offered in that without the performance plan, Council has suggested that we would ~ffe~just a cost of living increase commensurate with what the other Stanton V cities betWce~ 1O}000 and 20,000 are offering in this year which equates to approximately 2.5%. TherefOre, it might be perceived that the exempt package is too high, however, again the tenur~e',rclasJs and market portion of the package is below the Stanton cost of living adjUst~ent~ and it is only due to the performance provisions that increases are suggested on averag~ above these levels. *Shown with PerSonnel Coordinator Adjustment