Agenda Packets - 1995/03/27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The options outlined above represent actions that the Council can take for which there is concrete and defensible data and rationale. There are other options, of course. However, it is perhaps in the best interest of the City to remain within realistic boundaries, especially in response both to the public and private sector markets. Direction: Staff is seeking direction from the Council as to the percentage increase to be granted both union and non-union personnel for pay year 1995. It is my recommendation that the City remain as consistent with market as possible as long-as-we-are-in-compliance withPayEquity. - In 1991, the City adopted a compensation policy whereby employees would receive increases over and beyond annual compensation adjustments to keep them consistent with their professional comparisons (Stanton 6 cities). Since the adoption of that policy, the money has been taken out of the budget each year, preventing any increases over and beyond the annual increases designed to keep pace with inflation. While offering 3% to the Police in 1995 represents a deviation from the arbitration award, it accomplishes the following: 1. It represents what the City, more than likely, would have granted as an increase for 1995 had we bargained for rather than included 1995 in the arbitration award. 2. Keeps them consistent with their professional comparisons, which will compound in future years - years that may represent a budget crisis in which the standard percentage may not be possible. 3. Decreases the chances of another arbitration in the near future. I say decrease, I do not say eliminate. 4. Creates goodwill. It does not penalize the Police for an arbitration process that was prolonged through no fault of theirs or the City. It also sends a message to them that the City's intent is to be fair since 3% is the standard percentage increase for 1995 and it was the increase about that they had asked for 1995, not 3.5% or 4%. Longevity Pay - If the City were to grant a 3% increase, it could be granted to only base pay with a special caveat that only 2.5% would be given to longevity. This would reduce the "doubling" effect of a straight 3% increase.