01/31/91 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

available per employee and if it's not used, it's lost. It is not transferrable from one employee to another. 16) Duration: The City agrees that one year is appropriate. The pay plan was discussed. Ms. McAloney explained the general increase is proposed to be effective January 1st and the performance increase is proposed to be effective July 1st. The performance increase will be based on satisfactory, above satisfactory and superior review. All the positions within the City will be reviewed and re-evaluated and a plan will be implemented to put the positions in the range they should be in. This may take six months to two years. Mr. Nelson stated that if the positions are reviewed within six months, the negotiating time is in August and that would be good timing. He commented that the present pay increase schedule is better than the one City Council is now proposing. Councilmember Hardin stated this is a one-year contract and that all the positions need to be re-evaluated. Ms. McAloney explained that by the general increase at the beginning of the year being a smaller amount and the performance increases on July 1st being according to the mark of your review, this would eliminate the present inequities from becoming worse. Some staff is overpaid and all the other ones will continue to have to play "catch-up" if the general increase is the larger amount given to all at the beginning of the year. Ms. Rogers asked, if the increase would be retroactive to the anniversary date. Ms. McAloney replied that with this particular scenario, there will be no anniversary date as there is a set date of July 1st. Discussion ensued regarding the percentages of the pay raises. The issue of the City's limited funds was also addressed. Mr. Boos stated that the Public Works Department was excited about the tendency to pay according to performance as opposed to the fiat guaranteed rate so he felt the split ratings may be well received; however, he feels a need for some kind of an avenue to get from the beginning to the mid-point of the pay range. The general increase and salary increase is tied to the range minimum. Councilmember Peterson stated the general increase could be "dropped down" and the performance increase raised. He added that they've done some research and aren't seeing too many salary settlements at 8, 9 and 10%. He asked for input as to what the final number is the Bargaining Unit wants to see. Mr. Boos reiterated again how important it is to implement a plan regarding reaching mid-point, etc. He stated that because of some classifications, sometimes the employee is not able to go higher in their pm'ticular job. Mr. Nelson asked if 80% to start, 90% at six months and 100% at 12 months is still the plan. The reply was that no decision has been made yet regarding that. All issues are being looked at and it is suspected there will be changes. As many items as possible will be addressed and the inequities corrected. The meeting recessed at 4:36 p.m. so the AFSCME Bargaining Unit could review the counter proposal by the Council. The Negotiating Committee Meeting reconvened at 5:37 p.m. Mr. Nelson distributed copies of their counter proposal and proceeded to review each item individually. AFSCME Proposal to the City of Ramsey; January 31, 1991. 1) Holidays: The counter request is for 12.5 holidays. The previous request for a whole day on Christmas Eve has been dropped, the two floating holidays have been dropped and the request is for Good Friday off and also the day after Thanksgiving. 2) Vacations: The AFSCME Bargaining Unit maintains three weeks of vacation after four years and status quo for the rest. 3) Sick Leave Conversion: Withdraw. Negotiating Committee/January 31, 1991 Page 4 of 6