Minutes - Council - 01/11/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

COMPARABLE WORTH/LABOR NEGOTIATIONS BY: Kay McAioney, Personnel Coordinator CASE # 1 Background: Comnarable Worth What isfis nm Como Worth? In 1984, the Minnesota Legislature passed a bill requiring pay equity for employ~ of~10cal government. The Act applies to political subdivisions which fall under the Public EmPjfiye~s Labor Relations Act (PELRA). The legislation was modeled on the Stated GovernmemiPay. Equity Act of 1982: which had simil,,ar requirements for employees of state governmen[. SPa~ equity is also called ' comparable worth' or "equal pay for work of equal value." Pay equity iS a simple concept. It is a remedy for patterns of sex bias in the pay for jobs held mostly by Women. The law has [w,.en amended several times since 1984, but the overall concept remains unchanged. The purposb, bf pay equity has always been to eliminate sex-based wage disparities. The new law of 1990 mad~ several changes to the previous act, some of which may not have significant impact. Four changes, hOWever, were very important to cities: 1) oar classification system (used to determine the comparable worth job classes) M~ST be maintained and updated; 2) an implementation report based on end 1991 data must be submitted by January 1, 1992; 3) the Commissioner of Employee Relations has the power to determine whether or not an agency has achieved pay equity; and 4) a finding of noncompliance will result in a 5% reduction of state aid or a frae of $100 per day, whichever is greater. The new act I'equires the Department of Employee Relations (DOER) to determine compliance initially anal ~report findings to the Legislature. The law states that equitable compensation relationships tnust be achieved by December 31, 1992. This means that all pay adjusunents needed to eliminate gend, er-based disparities must be made by that time. Each local government must submit an implementation report to the DOER by January 31, 1992 to serve as the basis for the complianeedetetmination. The final report must be based on the jurisdiction's payroll as of December 3 lr, 1991. Why did we~do ~e Comr~ Worth Studv? Who reouested it? As shown in attachment number 1, 17 of the curreat}28 ~60.7%} positions hak, e been "si&ted in" due to it either being a new position or a reclassificatj0n. CSee attachment number 4.) As over 60% of current positions have not completed the Comp W~rth~questionnaire, the accuracy of our classification system is questionable. Due to negotiations during the 1991 contract, Council agreed to update the Comp Worth Study. Can we update iust some t)osifions? The Act only requires that you achieve and maintain pay equity. A'j.~sdi~tion may'use its existing classification, the state job match system, a consulting system, anCt ~yst~ms borrowed from other employers or designed by the jurisdiction itself. The job evaluation System measures skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. The implementation report must accurately reflect the jurisdiction's true compensation practice. As stated in the Pre¥ious question, 60.7% of current positions had not completed the Comp Worth questionnaimrpri0r to that just completed.