Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />! <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 />relevant than external comparisons unless there are present extreme <br />circumstances otherwise which I do not consider to be present here. <br /> <br /> The Union proposes an extensive differential between the <br />internal settlements with AFSCME of $182.00 and $195.00 in 1989 and <br />1990 respectively. It supports its position by comparison with th~ <br />average 1989 insurance contributions of Stanton Group V cities of <br />$215.00 for 1989 and $230.00 ($233.00) of the settled 1990 <br />contracts. It couches its 1990 proposal however in percentage <br />terms of 50% with no cap. <br /> <br /> The, City~. notes.. in rebuttal that there have been no <br />settlements of insurance contributions by the City and Union on the <br />basis of the average of employer insurance contributions under <br />Stanton Group V since at least 1983 with the city contribution each <br />year since 1983 being approximately $15.00 less than the Stanton <br />Group V average. <br /> <br /> The City further notes that to grant the Union's request <br />would be to further exacerbate the disparity in the total <br />compensation package between female-dominated job classifications <br />included in the AFSCME unit and administration and the male- <br />dominated job classifications included in the LELS unit. <br /> <br /> It also argued that to grant the requests of the Union <br />pertaining to wages, increase in insurance contributions and an <br />additional 1/2 day holiday in 1989 and 1990 than the other <br />employees would upset the past negotiated and arbitrated <br />settlements as well as jeopardize the City's efforts for comparable <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br /> <br />