05/26/92 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE # l~92':WAGES AND BENEFITS FOR EXEMPT EMPLOYEES ~ By: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator Background'.. On May 12, 1992 the Negotiating Committee met to discus~ the 1992 wages and benefits for the exempt perSonbeli ,At that meeting there was consensus by the committee to delay the approval of the proposed ~lan~ Until the first mediation session with the AFSCME bargaining unit, scheduled for May 19th, gvd$ held. The Negotiating Committee recommended that they meet again on May 26, 1992 priorlto file Council meeting. Enclosed for y~our review are point and comparison sheets for the exempt wage consideration for 1992. (Show~ with Personnel Coordinator adjustment) Up to this point, Council has forestalled consideration iof ~this package in that it was hoped that the AFSCME package and the exempt package couldibe'.done at the same time. As you are aware, AFSCME recently filed for mediation with the first ~ee.:.ting scheduled for 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 19, 1992. It is contemplated that there may be~ev~al sessions with the mediator in that AFSCME and management appear to be some distanc~ apart. You will also note that the proposal to AFSCME was a 5.6% personnel budget increatte hnd a 5.24% wage increase of which 3.19% was a comparable worth increase reflecting yeats, .Class and market adjustments. The balance of 2.05% was for performance and goals. The exempt proposal in front of you this evening is a 4.72% personnel budget increase and a 4.47% incr{asO-in payroll. It is the management position that the exempt package compares favorably with thief AFSCME package as originally proposed by management and it includes the performance ~unCtions which Council has stated as a priority within the pay plan for 1992. In considering whether 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~oup is concerned within this contract year as well as with future contract years that they ngt he relegated to a position of waiting for an AFSCME agreement or an agreement with afly Other labor union in that they do not have an ability to control the settlement, or lack tl'/erob]~, of any particular group other than their own. 3) It wasisuggested by members of the exempt group that if AFSCME does not eventually settle for !tle performance package, as presented, that this may in fact be as positive as the altem~tiv/~ in 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 Department Managers are in support of performance pay. 5) The increase attributable to tenure, class and market are below the adjustments that are being rna~¢ in other cities in this year. Concerns relaOvei to settlement or reasons for restraint or delay in settlement include: 1) AFSCME Will attempt to peg their eventual increase on the entire exempt package as well as the LELSipackage and not just the package attributable to tenure class and market, although I belie9e from a management perspective, this is defensible. 2) As likely: as not, the AFSCME package will result in a lower cost than management previously offered in that without the performance plan, Council has suggested that we would! offer just a cost of living increase commensurate with what the other Stanton V cities between !0,000 and 20,000 are offering in this year which equates to approximately 2.5%.