Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I i~_.~ <br />I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br /> The Union argues that the City is in effect taking an <br />inconsistent position in reference to its proposed~3.4% increase <br />and the proposed reduction of the starting rates. In effect it <br />argues that the City is externally using the Stanton Group V <br />comparables to justify a lower starting rate from 79% to 72%, and <br />internally the Comparative Worth Law and the job evaluation system <br />and study, and including the 3% wage increase settled between <br />AFSCME employees and the City to justify that a wage increase <br />should be only 3.4%. It argues that the City cannot have it both <br />ways. <br /> <br /> The Union notes that it would agree to the reduction of the <br />starting rate for new hires after December 31, 1990 as long as the <br />other rates would be adjusted upward to the Stanton Group V average <br />of $2,869.00 for 1989 (4.5%) and $2,986.00 (4%) for 1990 for the <br />top police rate. <br /> <br /> I agree with the Union that there should be no decrease in <br />the starting rate and that it should be maintained at the 79% level <br />as it has in the past. <br /> <br /> I do not consider that the city has demonstrated any <br />compelling reason why there should now be a reduction in the <br />starting rate and particularly in view of the fact that I have <br />accorded the wage in equity study (job evaluation system) of the <br />City substantial weight in my determination of the increase in <br />wages to be granted under Issues 2 and 3 of this opinion. This in <br />my opinion would not be reasonable nor fair to the Union. <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br /> <br />