Agenda - Council - 09/23/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

'1 ,I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I ratings than the employee deserves. Others evaluate more harshly than necessary so they won't be accused of favoring a subordinate who has become a friend. Ratings will be incon, sist_ent unless one person evaluates everyone: At least four people would be evaluating exempt employees. The same performance could conceivably receive fear different ratings, depending on the evaluator. Per£ormanqe~ppraisals have not been a high priori.W: Successful performance appraisals recluire a commitment to take the process seriously, believe there is value in it and do it in a manner that is honest, fair, timely, and conscientious. Implementir~gperformance based pay entails a_lot of work. for an organization that prides itself on having one of the lowest staff to citizen ratios in the area; As new mandates and responsibilities are added, none are taken away. Nor is staff added. Diverting attention from doing their jobs to justifying their existence on paper seems like a poor use of resources, especiallY when it is unclear what additional benefit will be realized from the additional paperwork. Singling out one employee ~oup for r)erformance based pay increases is discriminatory.; Exempt employees don't have the same protection as unionized employees. Most of them are not: eligible for overtime pay or compensatory time. Although their salaries are supposed to reflect the fact that their jobs routinely require more than 40 hours per week, the reality is that on a per hour basis, many managers earn less than their unionized subordinates who receive overtime pay. Raises for unionized employees are negotiated and granted regardless of individual performance. Mitigating ckcumstance~ can prevent employees from meeting standards: There is concern that performance based pay will be implemented to the letter, i.e. that whatever is written in the plan is what the employee will be rated on. If, for reasons beyond the employee's control, the expectations weren't met, the employee may be penalized, even if they were doing more work than usual, as in the case of temporarily covering duties normally assigned to someone else. The implication that exempt employees are not accountable makes them defensive: It's demoralizing to be told that a new structure needs to be developed or the City can't count on exempt employees to do their jobs as they should be done. revised 7/03/97