Agenda - Council - 06/12/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I- l I I I I I I I I I I I contemplated by the legislature. Furthermore I do not see any clear evidence that the plan, which was as I noted above established under the auspices of a professional organization, was not and is not as required by law. As~the City's comparative worth analysis and job analysi~ notes there is a substantial disparity between pay for police officers (a male-dominated class) and other City jobs. In fact it demonstrates that the police are substantially over the corridor (80%-120%). It is clear that any increase above that granted and settled with other employees represented by AFSCME of 3% will be to effect an increase in the differential and exacerbate this disparity. The Act requires that the goal of the City is to bring the compensation for all of the employees within the corridor of the 100% line indicated in the study reviewed by the arbitrator. The City however, recognizing that external comparables have some relevance in the determination of that compensation for the City's police officers such as the Stanton Group V has given the average increase for the Stanton Group V settlements for the year 1989 and 1990, a 49% factor in the Comparative Worth Law or internal comparative worth study (internal) 51% factor, thereby giving greater weight to the comparative worth study than the external comparatives of Stanton Group V cities. The problem as I see it is to what degree am I required to consider the comparative worth study of the City in preference or in relationship to the external comparabilities such as the Stanton 12