Travis County Commissioners Court
June 3, 2008
Item 19
Now, number 19, it is to consider and take appropriate action on transportation and natural resources proposed salary adjustment plan for recruitment and retention issues within the maintenance job classifications.
>> good morning. Joe gieselman and carol joseph from transportation and natural resources. We bring you today a proposal to increase the pay of the maintenance category classification by one dollar per hour. This comes about in part because of turnover in that particular category. As we were examining the potential causes for that, we did one of our own market salary surveys of some of the government entities that continually hire away our people. -- that typically hire away our people. So we looked at the city of Austin, txdot, Williamson county, bastrop, hays, caldwell counties to find out what their hourly pay was for the same type of positions that we hire for, maintenance worker and equipment operators. And on the average we found that we were probably falling behind the market for liken teats. And I would say at least a dollar is how far we're behind and that was the genesis for the proposal to go ahead and just upgrade the entire family, including supervisors, because we didn't want to result in a compression issue. We do include both the road and bridge workers as well as the park workers. Who are experiencing the same issue. We would also ask that there be a one time exception to the red line, which is the end of the classification scale because some of our workers who have been with the county for years, just because they've been here that long they're bumping up against the end of the scale so they cannot benefit from any salary increases, so if we relax the end of the scale, we're allowed to also include them in this pay increase. If we did this sooner than later, and we're proposing this month this would also make these employees also eligible for the performance pay that we have allocated funds to do. We have about 200 goes in tnr that would be covered -- 200 employees in nnr. Tnr has the current budget that would satisfy the money out of the road and bridge fund and the $150,000 it would cost out of the general fund side. These are just one time savings from our salary savings, and the issue will really come up in fy '09 and subsequent years when we don't have those permanent savings in the budget to cover. Is subsequent years. So there is a subsequent impact to this that would go beyond the current year. We have a memo that documents the market salary survey that we did. This is something we did within our own human resource section. We have shared copy of this memo with the county hr department and they are looking at it. And I believe alicia is here and she's also prepared to comment on what you would have the court do with our proposal.
>> alicia, when would a report -- when could a report be done? On this issue?
>> a report confirming --
>> well, that and also to see how it fits with other studies that hr has underway and how soon those will come up.
>> oh, yes, ma'am. We have done a preliminary. Linda, would you please join me? We have done a preliminary review of what tnr has done and agreed with them in terms of the market movement that there has been increased wages and more competition for individuals, especially in the construction area. Our concern was that there are others in the county that have similar jobs, for example, to the park maintenance. We have custodial, service supervisors, we have grounds keepers that would be the same as park maintenance worker, park maintenance worker senior those titles are found in the sheriff and juvie report. Those would be the only departments that I知 familiar with that --
>> do those departments have the ability to come up with savings to address the needs in their departments?
>> we can certainly ask.
>> I think it might be helpful so that we can move this group of employees along. I really -- I mean, I think there's value in the jobs that these employees do. We always talk about them as being their the employees that stay behind when all other nonessential employees go home because of weather. And then they are the ones who respond to the calls that certainly I get in the office about potholes and things that are going unattended. I think that it's really extremely useful and a lot of commitment, I think, joe, for y'all to find the savings in a department. And I don't think we should punish you for finding the savings and coming up with the money for this. Nor should we penalize these employees because there are other groups of employees and the resources are in question. I think we need to dig a little deeper to see, this is a group of employees that I am really interested in in giving them a little more pay. Hopefully they will find the savings within their department.
>> I have a question. In regards to this specific group of employees that tnr is asking about, at what point in our four-year compensation review did they come up for market salary survey.
>> this particular -- these titles, which are represented through two job families.
>> they will be reviewed two years from now?
>> they will be reviewed again if we were -- if we go into a review for 2009, we would start that review in 2009 of these titles.
>> for consideration in fiscal year tent 10?
>> 2010 is when they would naturally start the three-year cycle. That's correct.
>> the other question I have is in regard to retention and recruitment issues, are these two job categories more acute than the others that you cite in regard to comparables?
>> we would have to do the analysis. We have not done that. I think we can do that quickly. I don't know whether you had a chance to do it or not.
>> on the recruitment and are you tension issue, I do know that the road maintenance worker and the road maintenance equipment operator, I believe, that the department has traditionally been challenged to fill those positions. About two months ago, I believe, hr, my office as well as hr/tnr, collaborated and did an extensive recruiting venture that helped the departments fill the many vacancies they have. I don't know if you're fully staffed now, but I believe you had some success from that effort in filling the vacancies.
>> we had very much success. We've lost a couple recently, but it was very great move. We had a recruitment where we hired on the spot and linda and her staff worked closely with our staff and it was very good.
>> that's great news.
>> one thing that I think is real --
>> she's asking about the other groups, yes.
>> the other group, I知 sorry.
>> retention and recruitment from --
>> [overlapping speakers].
>> retention and recruitment from the other job families --
>> we would have to, as alicia mentioned, have to look at the turnover rate there to 72 it compares to and how it compares to the other positions.
>> what I知 driving at here is I think our scheduled cyclical review of all our job families is so very, very useful. If we don't establish criteria under which we would adjust the job family outside a schedule, then our whole system of cyclical review will come unraveled. So I would suggest that retention and recruitment statistics be utilized to identify -- to justify when we do go outside a schedule. It sounds like we do have out owe we have had and continue to have serious recruitment and retention issues in this specific area. So I would submit that we could use this perhaps as a template for what kind of criteria we would consider to step outside the schedule. Because I would hate to see that schedule come unraveled. I think it's very useful. It can be tweaked here and there, ask me, but by and large, the fact that we have a schedule for routinely reevaluating all the job families in the county I think is spectacular and I wouldn't want to see that come unglued to be an ad hoc.
>> and I could be in agreement, Commissioner. The only thing is that the -- in order to try to explain to a constituent who calls on an ongoing basis about why the work hasn't been done and to the point that it's very simple. If y'all would just come out and take care of this, you know, instead of me having to call you several times, that's very uncomfortable. It's very comfortable when we can't respond to constituents. And I think the retention has an effect on that. The inability to retain. And then the other thing that concerns me is -- I understand the schedule, but these are the employees who are still making $10, when you know that the living wage in this area is probably at 12. And I think that we need to address this group of employees. Unless we want to hear r. Hear about their stories, I値l bet some of them could probably be eligible for food stamps. We've had those testimonies before in this court where employees were at the bottom not making very much an hour and eligible for services. Unless we want to go there.
>> I agree with you, Commissioner Gomez. There's no doubt in my mind that these employees deserve this raise. My only question is how do we maintain our really good cyclical review of every single employee's market appropriateness. We could create a precedent here that unravels that cyclical system.
>> but I don't want to set a precedent for letting people fall through the cracks either.
>> and that's exactly what I知 talking about.
>> we know that at the time that we implemented these pay actions September 16th of '08, that the city of Austin followed us about a year later in terms of the hourly market rate for these positions. So what our pay range does is allow for, within the pay range, for that kind of movement or to pay based on the market within that range. So in terms of the structure itself in the three-year cycle that we do, the pay range is available to do that. We know that the average salary that we're paying is less, of course, than the local market, but the pay range in the current structure would accommodate that kind of pay adjustment without disrupting the cycle that you're speaking of.
>> how do we determine when it comes to reviewing the particular family for the market salary survey cite, how are they determined who is next to be evaluated? The reason why I知 proposing this question is here we have an emergency situation in my mind where we are trying to address a retention issue of 218 employees, road maintenance folks. And there are wages (indiscernible) per se, range. How do we look at the next family I guess to be looked at? Whereby we have to deal where this. There's no doubt in my mind we have to deal with this. But to try to place into the category of who's next, how is that determined?
>> the court has made that decision through its approval of the three-year strategic plan that we've operated by.
>> remind me.
>> we are in the last year of that plan now and will be bringing the results of that third year of that three-year cycle to you in a few weeks. Typically what has been done, hr has made the recommendations to the court on which families pretty much based on the kind of issues that we hear from the department that particular titles are in need of a review. So as we would come forward perhaps with another plan, since this one is expiring at the end of this fiscal year, we would make an assessment based on feedback from departments and issues that have come up on which job families would be proposed for review. And those would be considered by the court in terms of prioritizing which ones need to be included.
>> well, in this particular case that's been brought before us by hr, they do have salary savings that's been made available to take care of the situation now to ensure that those persons are brought into a level whereby it's comparable to other markets, same type of employment opportunities, but what if -- if we do end up approving something like this, there has to be a ratchet-up effect and so probably looking at possible persons still not being barred or eliminated from the performance based pay type of situations. Do we know exactly what that ratchet-up effect would be by doing something today, approving the request that pbo has made, what would that look like for the next fiscal year?
>> this fiscal year the effect on the road and bridge fund is $210,000 approximately and 150 on the general fund side. And that -- what we're suggesting is that it comes from salary savings. Next year the ratchet would be the same amount, except in the road and bridge fund we already -- when we submitted our '09 budget to pbo, there was a savings in the salary line items because of how people came in and left. As we budgeted salaries for individuals when one leaves, they may come in at a lower rate and therefore had you savings left in those line items, and those are items that no one ever gets taken back. So we left it into the salaried line items in case we had to deal with our salary issues, which we knew were coming. So -- in the road and bridge fund we left in the line items permanent savings of $150,000. So the effect next year, '09, for the road and bridge, would only be half of the 350 -- 10. It would be less 150,000. Whereas in the general fund there was no savings to be able to do the same thing. So the effect of general fund ratchet would be the 150.
>> pbo has the cost of this just from the information we gathered and on our own, I wasn't able to find 218. This might be a little bit off of what their numbers represent. The 150,000, which I知 assuming is an analyzed cost for the general fund and the 310,000 analyzed cost in road and bridge fund compared to my numbers, I got 130104 for that. And I got 392,409 for the roadable bridge fund. But she is correct that there is 150,000 that they have set aside for handle a portion of that. There is not like she said on the general fund fund. And there's not a budget request. So if the Commissioners court were to fund this or address this would need to be addressed by fy '09. As far as the temporary salary savings that were discussed, that is correct. They do have temporary salary savings above and beyond what pbo budgets. In the road and bridge fund right now from the may run that we did, and we're about to do another one in June, I have approximately 394,000, and in the general fund we have approximately 311,000. However, if this were to be approved, the court should be aware that these employees right now is in the revenue estimate, the first revenue estimate, and it would be reduced therefore. So I just wanted to mention that.
>> and on --
>> a question. One is last time we received this report and were told that we did have a problem that we should address, and it was kind of simple to me. But listen to go your explanation today, -- listen to go your explanation today, pay increases would be recommended for supervisory personnel and others, not just maintenance workers and equipment operators.
>> right. In the same family.
>> right, but did you do a market salary on those salaries?
>> no. But the issue created compression, so as a result we just took it up to the highest within the road and bridge with the compression stuff.
>> I think we need more information about that, though. I think if we act on this, others in the maintenance worker and equipment operator categories and other departments will complain of a similar problem.
>> you can expect that that would happen.
>> so is this on for work session next Thursday?
>> no, this item is not, this job family is not?
>> but others are.
>> it could be.
>> I think it should be on there.
>> I think we aid to add this to the list and add a full report next week. And I think the court needs to see basically -- I don't need names, but I certainly need the titles of those we're recommend fog an increase. The other question is are we talking about a buck or two dollars. Your proposal is based on one dollar or two dollars?
>> one dollar.
>> we think one dollar will get us back in the market.
>> okay. So confirmation of that. Confirmation that I guess we may as well go ahead and find out what other maintenance workers, equipment operators and other categories that we're targeting here in other departments may be impacted. The third thing really is, joe, I think we need to see who will be recommended for an increase and why. And if there's compression that impacts 10 people, 25, we need to see more of the numbers.
>> okay. I致e listed the job title. Did you want the number of positions in each one of those titles?
>> and the level of compensation.
>> that's increased or base? How much they're making right now, how much they will be making?
>> yes, sir.
>> to get to these numbers we have to do that.
>> I know the information is available.
>> it is.
>> and also from hr. Is it possible to get turnover rate and vacancy rates for not only these two job families, but also the comparable job families that could -- that could experience equity issues?
>> yes.
>> it's good to have.
>> my view is if we have a problem, we may as well fix it now if we can. But we have to realize that there will be ongoing budget impact. And so we need to know what that is. Two kinds. One is if we use temporary dollars here, we have to use permanent dollars for next year and thereafter. And we may as well know what the impact is in other departments of similarly situated workers. So if we can do this Thursday of next week and have it on the agenda the following Tuesday for action, then it seems to me that youtube that's what we ought to do.
>> I agree that we need to look at the whole family, and. That we need to do it pretty much. It kind of seems to drag out for me a little too much. And I think we need to address this family. They need some help.
>> my only request is that in addressing it -- I agree it's clearly needed. That we be very specific in why we're addressing it now out of time because otherwise we'll get into a circumstance where only the squeaky wheel job families will get reviewed and they will get reviewed more often and that creates a whole other level of inequities in regard to market analysis of our full employment, of our full employee schoollation.
>> this is not what it's about. It's about essential beams.
>> but it could become about that.
>> but it doesn't have to be.
>> speaking of others, if we could make a couple of those seats available. Mr. Powell?
>> morning, judge, Commissioners. I知 greg powell with ascme. There are a couple of comments I would like to make on the discussion here. First I want to draw your attention to the fact that the reason I値l say we're here, I知 here certainly in support of the tnr request today, is because we are confronting some realities in the workplace, some we've made you aware of in the past and some that have been made more glaring as we go along. We are keeping our focus very narrow towards tnr in the specific classifications within that department that we're being adversely affected by the market, retention issues, recruitment issues and so forth. Your concerns about doing things out of order with our cyclical reviews that you talk about would be valid if in fact when we did those reviews we acted upon those reviews such as funding the reviews analysis that says we're out of market, we need to do this and we need to increase our salaries accordingly. The second part of not funding is why we are here today, is why the tnr market is out of whack, and I知 certain many other classifications, titles throughout departments are. But that's not our focus today. Our focus is presenting to the court a specific need in the specific department. And this is not unprecedented. We've done this in the past come forward to the court on specific hot button issues where we are unable to do the services that the constituents expect of you and of the department. That's what's driving us here today with tnr. It wasn't to take a look at all the inequities that exist out there because that's the subject of many years of work, I do believe. The reason we're here is because the disparity and the turnover rate at tnr is most glaring of the departments. And that's the focus. And tnr stepped up to the plate, did some market analysis and stepped up to the plate in terms of providing some of the internally funding some of the need that was necessary to address this problem. The dollar -- the proposal for a dollar an hour across the board increase I think is wholly insufficient for the data that we've looked at. I will share some of that with you in a minute. Of course removing the red line. We've talked about -- as linda said, we have markets established with minimums and maximums and the departments are allowed to make some adjustment within that, but the problem is that market red line, the maximum, is what's causing part of our problem that. Red line is probably three to four dollars off of where it should be, lower than what we are seeing as the maximum in other employers' market studies. I値l share some of that with you also. All we are doing right now is actually giving a head start on a market study that is schedule, but it would be two years from now if we follow the hrd schedule, it would be two dollars two years before any of those employees saw any market increase. In the meantime we're going to continue to experience recruitment and retention issues, the market keeps moving further out. We're going to have a much bigger leap to make at that time if we wait the two years. I知 suggesting and I think it's responsible in joe gieselman's proposal here that we try to stay somewhat abreast of that market and it will help us in our recruitment issues. The departments have supplied you some salary data information on page 3 of 4 of this report. I just want to draw your attention to a few thing. Eddie, if you would help me on this. We just did -- you will have to forgive me. I put this together this morning over my coffee and cigarettes, just looking at available data that is out there on the city of Austin and Travis County, particularly tnr. And I chose the city of Austin because it is your most direct competitor for these positions. Certainly there's txdot, there's Williamson county, there's other employees involved, and of course what's absent from the salary data comparison that you got is any mention of the private sector, which is also becoming an increasing competitor for government workers because there's too many opportunities with the construction going on with them. If you look at a quick comparison between tnr and the city of Austin, which is the handout I gave you, that it focuses on, you will see and it's bracketed the differences in these pay levels. You will see that we range at a minimum, a very minimum of 1.05 an hour for an maintenance worker on the starting end up to a $9.38 difference in the market data. I知 referring to the maintenance senior position, which is capped out at 15.68 here at Travis County. It's 23.06 at the city of Austin. Now, those are markets, that's ranges. I知 not going to get too crazy about those kind of numbers, but if you will look at the midpoint, the numbers in the midpoint, we did an average based on the tnr's employees and what categories they are and the number of employees and their salaries in those categories. That information is available to you. And came up with the averages. Those averages fall within a quarter one way or the other of the midpoint number that you see here. So, for instance, a typical Travis County maintenance senior, their average pay is $13.25 an hour. A city of Austin maintenance senior is making $18.30 an hour, $5.05 an hour increase. Look at the operators you will see a difference of $2.42 an hour, which is where the bulk of your employees at tnr reside. And your operator seniors, you will see a $4.04 an hour difference of what the city of Austin pays for those positions versus what tnr pays for those positions. The city of Austin's market data is certainly more recent than the last one we did at tnr. It was produced last year, so this is pretty good market data. And it includes the watson wyatt reports which kind of gauge the private sector, which is a factor in coming up with your pay rates. I think there's a much more glaring need than a dollar an hour to address the situation and it can extrapolate also to the parks employees in those classifications. You will find a similar disparity in their pay. Right now that's all we're able to do and all we're really focusing on. It's what today is about in tnr is addressing the departmental needs for recruitment and retention. And it's not trying to take things out of the order and try to get a jump on the market. It's dealing with the the realities that this dent is dealing with. It's the realities that you deal with in constituent services and maintaining our roads and the potholes and everything else. That gets done by people, and that's these workers. The hiring conference was successful, indeed, but I want to draw your attention to a fact, and that is, for instance, I think in the maintenance worker category, we hired 16 individuals in that hiring conference. And that was approximately a month ago now. In March. Today five of those positions are already vacated for a host of reasons, one or another. I suspect as these workers get a taste of this work in the summer, over the summer, they will be looking for greener, not cooler grasses elsewhere. Particularly once they have secured a cdl license and they become much more marketable, which is what we see. People will come here, they'll pick up some requisite skills, pick up a cdl license and then they will move on because they recognize that these employees license will get them two to three to five dollars an hour more elsewhere and we're back in the same boat again. The approach we're taking here is to stick a thumb in the dike that's losing our employees to other sectors, and I think it's something that we have to deal with. The department talks, and I think it's recognizing some of the recruitment that they've done about reductions of involuntary terminations, right? That is people who are being fired for a host of reasons, drug, alcohol related issues, all sorts of issues. They talk about wanting to invest in that. I知 saying that Travis County already invests in that through the employee assistance program and we can direct these employees to these kind of resources rather than it spending tnr dollars to fund those programs that would be better used to shore up the salaries so you could attract a better caliber of employee that would come to you with those skills and cdl license and not make some of this stuff necessary. So that's the union's way of looking at this thing. We've been working with joe gieselman and the department in confronting this problem. We've been out talking to the workers and got a good taste of t I think joe's proposal is certainly a step in the right direction. But like you did your market studies last year and how you funded those, where someone received a pay level increase, they got a one percent increase, right? Well, what it calls for is a seven percent increase. And what you did was a step in the right direction, but far short of where we need to be. And if we continue doing this ready we're just going to keep slipping further and further behind. You all know that, you acknowledge it every time we discuss it, but at some point in time you have to step up to that problem. I don't know any way of addressing it other than the cold hard dollars that are going to be necessary to run your business. So that's what I知 going to ask you to do. I知 asking you to not expand this to all these comparisons. The data is there and then some that you're well aware of it yourselves, and human resources department has looked through this data also. The reason we've chose to do it among all the classifications there, including the supervisors, is a very serious issue of compression. You will have some supervisors who have a whole host of their own responsibilities over and above everything else that if we make the necessary adjustments for these equipment operators, we will have equipment operators seniors that are making as much or right up to the salaries of the supervisors and managers involved, and it's not a tenable situation for you. So the proposal is very direct and very straightforward, two bucks an hour across the board. It gets you about halfway there to where you're -- what the market is telling you really need to be. I would love to see the whole $4. I understand the constraints that we're dealing with here, but I think taking it to at least half that level is the responsible thing to do and it's the responsible thing to do today as opposed to continue to look at all other kinds of comparisons and so forth. I think the data is there. You know it. You know the problem at tnr and it's just for you to address it. I would love for one of you to make that motion to move this to the two dollars today so we can get this thing implemented.
>> it would rely on an analysis by the human resources department.
>> say that again, please?
>> we typically would ask for an analysis by the human resources department.
>> you would. And we -- tnr took the initial be active on this. It was shared with the -- took the initiative on this. It was shared with the human resources department, I believe. And that's what causing part of my concern here on the salary data that you were given. I always tell you that there's a lot more art than science that goes into these market studies. What this shows here is not representative of the full report that we looked at in terms of some of these -- the comparisons with some of these employers. Just real quickly, like the txdot comparison here shows $10 to 12.06. That is a level 1 employee at txdot. That is your absolute entry level position. The typical txdot employee is making anywhere between 14.52 and 17.39 an hour. And a cdl is not even required for those positions at that kind of pay. The cdl is a very valuable piece. The Williamson county number that we're comparing to that shows 12.81 versus our 12.37. But if you look at the Williamson county report, they're experiencing extremely high turnover. It's a result of the salaries that they're willing to pay for those positions. You can go through this thing.
>> but it seems to me that we need you to get with tnr and hrmd between now and next Thursday also because the numbers that we were handed in the backup are not as -- the gap is not as significant as you've just given us.
>> I understand. And that's an accurate snapshot that you were given, but it's only up to a certain level. It's up to the midpoint of those various positions. It didn't include the others. And all I知 trying to do here -- because I don't think you get a good snapshot in time unless you put a wide angle lens on these cameras and take a look at what you're truly dealing with. The reason those numbers were presented to you as they were, because they easily, easily support the one dollar an hour request that joe is asking for.
>> I would submit that they were presented not taylor made to joe's request, but that they were submitted as a -- they use a template across the board so that we get an apples to apples comparison. Am I correct about that?
>> that's correct.
>> and one other question for mr. Powell. Would you agree that it would be good for us as a county from a labor perspective to augment our current market salary survey policy with the flexibility of taking a job family out of schedule when we do see these kinds of turnover rates? Recruitment issues, vacancy rates, compression, I think those four right there are clearly issues that we're seeing in this job family. And if we could -- I think we would need at least another week to craft the language of that policy. I absolutely agree we should have the flexibility to do that, but we need to be specific about the elements that are going in because we've had this conversation before. I agree that we have equity issues inside our labor force across the board we need to establish a triage for addressing them. We can't take it all in one big bite. And this would be one way -- one tool in triaging those needs.
>> I think --
>> but you want us to know whether we're looking at one dollar or two dollars. The fiscal impact of that is substantial, but if you want to seriously look at it, I have no problem with it. We need to see that, see what the survey shows, and then do with pbo sort of a fiscal review of the two dollars so we can know what impact that will have.
>> judge, I have no problem with that. And just out of -- let me say this to you, greg. Out of the other colleagues, the other members of the court, normally when someone makes a request to analyze or look into it for further review, normally the court normally recognizes that and allow that particular person the opportunity to see what's in question to them. So that's why a motion is probably not going to come out today in that regard because of the request requests that have been brought forward. That's just out of courtesy that we'll extend each other as maintains of the court. Second -- as members of the court. Secondly -- I guess there is a fiscal impact. When you say one dollar across the board as opposed to two dollars. So the amount we're looking at here from this temporary salary savings actually would be double of whatever we discussed earlier. And I guess as far as pbo is concerned, it would be double of that also. So I guess all of these little bits and pieces that need to be shared and looked at probably would have to be brought back later as far as those type of comparisons. But here's another question, tnr just happened to have money available in salary savings even to the degree of what -- even if it was a double this one dollar per hour as opposed to two, it still would suggest that there would be sufficient funds left in the temporary salary savings. But even so, let's say that there is a department that has a retention problem, whether we take them out of order or whether we take them and we look at them, especially if we are losing employees because of retention. What if that department didn't have the necessary funds to address it at the immediate time that it need to be checked into for expediency purposes? Do you see where I知 coming at? Because right now what we're looking at, there would be some ratchet up effect annualized at a later time. But there may be departments and we have to be really careful in what we're doing here because there may be departments that may fall into this same category that we're discussing here today fiend looked at. And of course, the thing is to find the necessary funding to accommodate it. So I have no problems waiting to delay so members of the court can actually have an opportunity to address the concerns, but it's a lot of interesting questions, a lot of interesting information that's going to be brought forward. So I have no problem waiting on that just based on courtesy from the court.
>> and greg, I would say let's take the dollar. Let's not turn it down and let's move on to see what else we can develop into it and just keep working on the second dollar. So I think we can do it with trying to gather all the information that we need to have for Thursday. Just so it's on Thursday's work session.
>> just to keep in mind, I think we're dealing with two issues here. One issue is your pay structure, the minimum, mid and max of the pay ranges for these positions. We recognize as an hr dent that our competitors, the city of Austin, make market adjustments after our study was done. Which is why you're into a three-year cycle to look at your structure. Within that existing structure, within that structure from minimum to mid to max, there is snuff within that range to administer salary that would be at a competitive level such as what the union is proposing. So I wouldn't want us to leave today thinking that your structure is off because naturally it would flow in the next cycle to look at that structure, but the range exists for that kind of movement, the administration of any pay actions to be accommodated. And I致e wanted to draw that distinction so that we wouldn't think that next Thursday we're talking about a full market study based on this particular request. We know we're behind the market, but your pay range will accommodate any actions that you would want to take based on this proposal. The other thing that I would like to remind the court of is your philosophy of external as well as internal equity among your pay titles. And that's the piece that we have been directed to bring back to you next Thursday because any action that is taken on these single titles will indeed affect others in the other departments that -- whose titles have been slotted to these particular titles. And we can bring that particular information back for you.
>> well, we ought to see what impact two dollars will have over one and what the market says about the two.
>> okay.
>> I think whatever we do we ought to be fully informed. The ripple impact basically will need to be dealt with probably during this budget cycle. So the more of that we know, the better we can prepare for it. That's my thinking. So work session next Thursday, and the following Tuesday we'll have it posted for action. And you have a policy amendment?
>> I can -- I would love to work with mr. Powell and with tnr and with linda regarding what kind of language we could establish in order to best triage the internal and external inequities.
>> good point, Commissioner, judge.
>> anybody else on this item? If so, please come forward. Thank you very much.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, June 3, 2008 12:51 PM