Agenda - Council - 09/09/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I EXEMPT WAGES By: Ryan R. Schroeder ~CASE # / Background: This item was tabled from the July 9 and August 13, 1996 Personnel Committee meetings. Both of those packets ~provided a fair amount of background information. Hence, we w/ll not be duplicating much ;of it within this case. At the last meeting, there was discussion that the nine staff members within the Exempt classification shou. ld have wage evaluations detailed separately rather than as a group. It was also noted that peffo ~nnance should be a primary consideration for wage considerations for these persons. Further, that relationship to market certainly is a consideration as well. The recent past p~ctice has been that the labor agreements are settled prior to consideration of Exempt wages. Both of these groups are settled with 1996/1997 labor agreements. The Exempt wage consideration, while generally later than the organized groups, has not been this late in the year in recent memory. Given that, I am asking Council to consider wages for both 1996 and 1997 at this time. Benefits for Exempt personnel always follow that of the organized groups. For-1996, the Employer contrib_~tion to benefits is $290 single/S312 family. For 1997, the contribution is $290 single/$334 family. In both years of the contracts, the changes are effective Aughst 1. It is recommended that Council ratify same for persons in the Exempt classifications. For 1996 wages, I am recommending the same rates of pay as previously presented. Attached is an itemization of those wage recommendations detailing the relationship of those wages to Stanton Class six median and midpoint wages. In all cases but one, the proposed wages are below the Stanton comparisons. The lone exception is for a 22 year employee for which it would not be unexpected to see wage comparisons toward the high end (due to tenure in the position). The average recommer)ded rate is at 94.2% of the Stanton median for an average tenure of Exempt personnel at 7 years. The Stanton relationship ranges from 85.5% to 110.8%. Generally, the longer the tenure, the better the pay relationship to Stanton. As noted, I am also recommending that Council provide a wage decision for 1997 wages due to the lateness of the year. I am recommending a 3% across the board adjustment which appears to be the standard CPI increase for 1997 wage decisions to date around the metro area. I also would like to recommend a solution to the Council concern for a performance based wage plan. As discusse~l previously, we have attempted to put together such a plan in the past. This attempt was not successful due to lack of agreement by all parties as to the impartiality of any potential process. 'I ask that Council set aside funding and a time frame for an acceptable process to be completed. The potential funding (2% of Exempt payroll) is already available within the 1997 budget proposal. The process needs to yet be discussed and agreed to. However, if Council sets a date certain within which Exempt personnel/Council can put together an agreed upon process, then the iopportunity for performance pay is, at least partially, in the hands of those persons to which it would apply. The deadline date should be early in 1997, which would allow for evaluation pursuant to the program by mid to late 1997. I suggest the end of February. It should be noted that the Consumer Price Index adjustment plus the set aside results in a payroll cost comparable to~ the AFSCME and LELS labor agreements.