Agenda - Council - 05/26/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CASE #ti :~EPORT FROM THE NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE By: Ryan $chroeder, City Administrator Background: On May 12, l~992!the Negotiating Committee met to discuss the 1992 wages and benefits for the exempt perso$ne!.I At that meeting there was consensus by the committee to delay the approval of the proposetl planluntil the first mediation session with the AFSCME bargaining unit, scheduled for May 19th,twa~. held. The Negotiating Committee recommended that they meet again on May 26, 1992 prik)f, to the City Council meeting. Enclosed for yourlreview are point and comparison sheets for the exempt wage consideration for 1992. (ShowO wit. h Personnel Coordinator adjustment) Up to this point, Council has forestalled consideration[of this package in that it was hoped that the AFSCME package and the exempt package cOut~ be d~one at the same time. As you are aware, AFSCME recently filed for mediation with the firS~t ~eeiing scheduled for 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 19, 1992. It is contemplated that there may be ~¢velral sessions with the mediator in that AFSCME and management appear to be some diStanc~t aP~rt. You will also note that the proposal to AFSCME was a 5.6% personnel budget incr~a ~e aOd a 5.24% wage increase of which 3.19% was a comparable worth increase reflecting y~a is' c!ass and market adjustments. The balance of 2.05% was for performance and goals. The Ox ,raP! proposal in front of you this evening is a 4.72% personnel budget increase and a 4.47% inex~ aSe in payroll. It is the management position that the exempt package compares favorably wit the[ AFSCME package as originally proposed by management and it includes the performance. ~ne~ons which Council has stated as a priority within the pay plan for 1992. In considering W~heth~r this package should be passed by Council, I have noted the following: 1) There appears to be agreement within the group on the package as presented. 2) The g ~uP is concerned within this contract year as well as with future contract years that they~!t I~eirelegated to a position of waiting for an AFSCME agreement or an agreement with a~y o~er labor union in that they do not have an ability to control the settlement, or lack th ~eOf, of any particular group other than their own. 3) It was suggested by members of the exempt group that if AFSCME does not eventually settle f ~r th~ performance package, as presented, that this may in fact be as positive as the altema ~ivei~n that it will allow for the exempt folks to be a test group. 4) As reported previously, it is important to show publicly that the City Council and the Dep~ent[Managers are in support of performance pay. 5) The ~nCrease attributable to tenure, class and market are below the adjustments that are being~ffiade[in other cities in this year. Concerns relatxve tO settlement or reasons for restraint or delay in settlement include: 1) AFSC:~ ~ill attempt to peg their eventual increase on the entire exempt package as well as the LEI.~S p~Ckage and not just the package attributable to tenure class and market, although I beli~v~ fr~6m a management perspective, this is defensible. 2) As likdly as not, the AFSCME package will result in a lower cost than management previoq~ly (~ffered in that without the performance plan, Council has suggested that we would 0ffer ~ust a cost of living increase commensurate with what the other Stanton V cities betweea 10,~300 and 20,000 are offering in this year which equates to approximately 2.5%.