Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> <br /> i <br /> ! <br /> <br /> I <br />i <br /> I <br /> i <br /> <br />! <br />:1 <br /> I <br /> <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> The Union further argues that even if I should determine to <br />give weight to the job evaluation study I should give little weight <br />to it because the study's job description, i.e. time spent profile <br />of the job of police officers is substantially inaccurate and is <br />not. inclusive of all of the duties of the City of Ramsey polic~ <br />officer. It noted several alleged disCrepancies in the manner and <br />method of the job evaluation study and that the study and results <br />as applied to the police officers, should receive little weight. <br /> <br /> The Union also argued that the Comparative Worth Law was not <br />intended to downgrade or suppress the pay of the male-dominated <br />classes as in this case, but that the intent was to Upgrade the pay <br />of female-dominated classifications only. <br /> <br /> It further argued that the lower taxable capacity or total <br />capacity per capita of the taxable capacity of the City of $502.47 <br />has no relevance to these proceedings, noting the comparison of the <br />neighboring Champlin .and Mounds View with taxable Capacity per <br />capita of $545.42 and $595.78, and that both of'these cities pay <br />police officers comparatively. It further argues that the City has <br />a million dollar trust fund for land fill reserve and will continue <br />to receive that amount which gives it additional access to moneys <br />for operating purposes. <br /> <br /> It submits that the demand by the Union for 4.5% for 1989 <br />and 4% for 1990 is reasonable in light of all of the comparables <br />and comparisons. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br /> <br />