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

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I increase as I did with the wages of the officers in Appendix A of the top patrol rate. I agree with the City's position that the Comparative Worth Law is also applicable here because proficiency pay is considered compensation and also is included in the City's calculation unde~ its comparative worth study. The City further argued that the percentage system for calculating proficiency pay is in and of itself a contradiction to the Comparative Worth Law because the increase is automatic based upon an increase in the basic wage structure in Appendix A. I do realize that presently a substantial majority of the Stanton Group V cities do have proficiency pay based upon a percentage. However, I do see a trend in the other direction and do recognize that th~ Comparative Worth Law does have an effect in this particular area. To continue the continuation of a percentage increase system in this situation would be clearly to aggravate the already out of balance pay scale of the police as compared to other employees of the City including female-dominated classes. To permit this continuance would in my opinion increase the difficulty of the City in implementing the Comparative Worth Plan in its entirety by the time required by law on December 31, 1991. The only reasonable thing to do is to convert it to dollars as I have done and to grant an increase of 3.5% for each year, 1989 and 1990 as I have done in reference to the wages for 1989 and 1990. I do not believe that the 3.5% application for both 1989 and 1990 will unreasonably 29