Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />comparisons as propounded by the City, referring in support to <br /> <br />Subd. 1 of 471.993. <br />consideration as follows: <br /> <br /> "(2) Compensation <br /> <br />It specifically provides for that <br /> <br />for positions bear reasonable <br /> <br /> relationship to similar positions outside of that <br /> particular political subdivision's employment." <br /> <br /> It thus asserts that the pay outside the jurisdiction of the <br />city of Ramsey for similar jobs is just as important as pay inside <br /> <br />the political subdivisions employment for the arbitrator's <br /> <br />consideration. <br /> <br />It cited- several arbitration awards in support of its <br />position, all of which were reviewed by the arbitrator. <br /> <br /> The Union further argued that even if I should determine to <br />give weight to the job evaluation study, I should give little <br />weight because the study's job description re: time spent profile <br />of the job of police officer in the City of Ramsey is substantially <br />inaccurate and is not comprehensive of all of the duties of a <br />police officer. <br /> <br /> It argued several discrepancies in the manner and method of <br />the job evaluation study by Control Data and thus a study on this <br />basis should receive little weight. <br /> <br /> The Union further argued that the Comparative Worth Law of <br />Minnesota was not intended to downgrade or suppress the pay of the <br />male-dominated classes as in this case but that the intent was to <br />upgrade the pay of female-dominated classifications. <br /> <br /> It further argued that the City's lower taxable capacity per <br />capita of $502.47 is evidence that is not relevant to these <br /> <br /> <br />