Laserfiche WebLink
accepted by a union that sees their pay below their professional comparison. The <br /> consequences of this is that we may find ourselves back in arbitration in the not too <br /> distant future. <br /> Pay Equity - The City was in compliance in 1994 and current pay equity regression runs <br /> indicate that we will be in compliance at the end of this year, when we will have to report <br /> our compliance status to the State. The only way that we might find ourselves out of <br /> compliance would be to let the male dominated classes move far beyond the female <br /> dominated classes. <br /> OPTION NO. 2 <br /> Non-union-personnel - 3.5% <br /> Union personnel 2.5% <br /> Rationale: <br /> Once again, the non-union increase is based on the premise that an attempt is made to <br /> keep salaries from slipping below their Stanton comparisons and also keeping a <br /> consistent increase level as to not jeopardize our Pay Equity compliance. The 2.5% <br /> increase given in 1994 and an increase of 3.5% for 1995 would average to a 3% increase <br /> over the two year period, consistent with Stanton comparisons. <br /> The 2.5% increase for Union personnel is consistent with the arbitration award. <br /> OPTION NO. 3. <br /> Non-union personnel - 2.95% <br /> Union personnel 2.50% <br /> Rationale: <br /> This option presents the reverse of the 1994 compensation increases when Police were <br /> granted 2.95% and non-union personnel received 2.5%. <br /> While on the surface this option appears to be equal, it is not. A 2.95% increase for <br /> Police in 1994 allocates a .45% lump sum increase for 1994 that is not made up entirely <br /> by the non-union personnel who received only 2.5% in 1994. If two groups had equal <br /> salaries, one received a 2.95% increase in 1994, the other only a 2.5% and then the next <br /> year, the percentages were switched, the salary at the end of 1995 would be the same, <br /> but the group receiving the higher increase first would have enjoyed one full year of an <br /> increase that would not ever be realized by the second group. <br /> Factor in the increases to longevity and non-union personnel would experience a distinct <br /> annual increase disadvantage. <br />