Laserfiche WebLink
• "A lump sum of$300 in 2013 shall be paid to benefit earning employees of <br /> record whose wage rate is equal to or less than $18.00 per hour. In 2013, this <br /> lump sum shall be paid the first full payroll period of 2013." <br /> Only one employee makes less than $18 per hour in Orono. However, setting <br /> the bar at $25 per hour would include the entire technical/administrative group <br /> and would exclude the supervisory/administrative positions which might <br /> accomplish the same "low wage incentive" intended by this language. <br /> • "A $500 cash lump sum shall be paid to all benefit earning employees of record <br /> effective and payable the first full payroll in 2012." <br /> It appears every Hennepin County employee was afforded a lump sum payment <br /> in their first year of the contract (2012) but only longevity and lower wage earners <br /> received a lump sum in the second year (2013). <br /> The advantage of this option is the lump sum payment does not compound the base <br /> wage thereby having less impact on the following year's budget. A possible <br /> disadvantage is employees may not perceive the onetime payment as sustainable for <br /> them to cover their costs of living in years ahead. They might also be less clear on what <br /> to expect from compensation going forward as lump-sum payments may be perceived <br /> as variable or unstable. This option could also have impacts on pay equity. For <br /> example, all non-union employees with more than 15 years of service are male. <br /> 2. Consider an employee compensation system that adds the pay steps of <br /> "target" and "maximum" and also utilizes lump sum payments (Similar to the City <br /> of Shorewood and Edina). <br /> In this option, the City Council would determine during the budget process how much (if <br /> any) money will be set aside for increases for non-union staff. For example, the total <br /> amount of funds available in the 2014 budget by Council directive is $35,200 which <br /> equals 1.9% of existing payroll. The salary pool would then be applied in one of two <br /> ways: <br /> 1. An increase to the base salary if the current salary for the incumbent falls on the <br /> comparable range of salaries kept by the League of Minnesota Cities. <br /> 2. When the incumbenYs existing salary falls above the comparable target market <br /> range then the compensation is recommended to be a one time, lump sum <br /> payment. You could also consider no payment or freezing the salary for an <br /> incumbent over the maximum range. <br /> The City would have to conduct annual external market surveys of similar positions <br /> using the League of Minnesota Cities salary survey tool. Comparables would need to <br /> 3 <br />