Travis County Commissioners Court
July 1, 2008
Item 23
23. Is to consider and take appropriate action on proposed policy change regarding adjustments outside the routine human resources management department schedule for market review.
>> this is a proposed policy change or policy addition in response to tnr's request to adjust the salaries of its parks and roads workers outside the routine schedule it appears there are other situations, jobs and families in service maintaining a scheduled review of all job families, the integrity of the scheduled review, I thought it might be advisable to September up a policy, a -- to set up a policy, a benchmark if you will, when we would take a job family out of turn so that it doesn't cause a deg agreedation as the cyclical system of reviewing all families on a regular basis. Taking the June 17 agenda item as sort of a baseline, I thought two-pronged test could be is the overturn above the average county turn overrate by 60% or more. While 60% or more sounds like a lot, the average county turn overrate is 63% so to be at -- 74%. So you would have to be roughly 15% of that turn over. The second prong, if the first prong is met then you would go to the second prong. And the reason why I set it up that way, the second prong applies resources to are applied to figure it out. Which is the average pay rate in the particular classification be or serious comparable positions below the market pay rate by 20% or more. That is looking at the average pay rate. Not the minimum pay rate. Not the median pay rate but the average actual pay rate in the job family or classification compared to the local market so you don't have to go look at minneapolis, you were' just looking at the local market but that would require hr, human resources, spend time on it. That is why I suggested the first prong be looked at rather quickly. And if you meet the first prong, you move to the second prong which would take a little bit more time there. Are other factors to consider too so it isn't a make or break on these two tests. Rapid movement in the labor market, exit shortages, management and employee complaints and that is a nonexclusive list. Just in terms of illustration, the job families that we looked at June 17 and gave an across-the-board $2 increase to, under this objective test, under the first prong, though job families were 81% above the county average turn overrate. I'm proposing 60% above the average county turnover rate. The second prong is applied to the June 17 agenda item. Those families with 22 to 26% below the local market in average actual pay rate and I'm proposing 20% below the local market. This isn't intended this policy isn't intended to be a make or break, it is just intended to give us some guidance so we don't have an avalanche that unravels the cyclical review. Whether it is three years or four years, whether a hiatus is taken between the third and fourth year or not, it is intended as a triaging policy that doesn't speak at all to whether the cycle should be three years or two years or four years or what.
>> so you just determined just using this type of illustration that you brought forth are flawed, opposed to going into the direction to try to capture some interest, it sometimes gets lost in the shuffle.
>> um-hum.
>> basically what is happening here, my concern, which I don't disagree with at all, my concern though, if we look at this particular policy, we capture those particular jobs because we know we have folks like mechanics and all these people who came up here when we dealed with the road maintenance, we maybe got caught off guard a little bit because of the fact that those folks really had not been part of the process as far as the increasing amounts so we end up awarding $2 an hour for the road maintenance folks but in that conversation we had all these other folks that came and testified saying what about us. Commissioner eckhardt is looking at what the about us of this particular item, 23. My concern, though, is hearings on this. And what would be the cost to hr to look at this policy and to implement this policy as far as now we're rearranging some stuff, proposed, anyway, to rearrange some stuff as far as s going in not different directions but let the direction that we go in be the tolerated by circumstances. What would it cost hr staff to actually look at something at this policy as far as money is concerned. I know you have your traditional market way of doing stuff, but again, this policy would be in addition to some of the things that we won't be caught off the guard in the future at looking at some of these folks that need to be looked at based on criterion. Have you all analyzed it to some degree?
>> let me just kind of work at maybe what we would wind up with a response.
>> okay.
>> someone that at this moment I'm sure the court remembers through the action as few weeks ago, we were authorized to study these two job families familiesn fy '09. So at this time, these two job families, the skilled trades at well as the general maintenance job families were the only two that we've been authorized by the court to study for '09. What we were hoping to do with the time in '09 is to study your full compensation salary administration structure. The kind of question you're raising now would allow us to take a look at assessing andanalyzing exactly what you're talking about to know when do we determine what to bring to court out of order, based on turnover and based on the kind of variables that are here. I think the quicker answer to your question is that I don't know the answer to that at this point.
>> that's all right.
>> but I expect we would be able to come back to you earl flee fy '09 to say to you and make recommendations to you on how we would do that.
>> the reason I pulled that is because I think it is a good way to go. When the mechanics and, I think an example that Commissioner eckhardt is using, mechanics and custodians and other ground keepers and a whole bunch of folks that are maybe not left behind but have not been maybe in the range of how we need to target them. And this is one way of how this proposal that exhibitioner eckhardt is bringing forth is a way maybe we can target those folks that maybe may not be in the stride or the steps of the survey as we're doing it at this point. So I'm kind of concerned about the cost, and also if we look at this, that, and if there is money available you, stuff like that there need to be something I think we need to look at that time as far as we have a reserve and we use that hopefully in the best interest of what we're trying to deal with and hopefully, it reserve will be able to accommodate some of these things. But I'm just trying to lay things out, put it on the table according to what Commissioner eckhardt has brought us as far as policy is concerned to maybe lay out this and make sure you guys are thinking money as far as if there is additional work that need to be done, if we fall into these particular categories, as mentioned in item 23.
>> get clarification. Let me get a clarification from you, Commissioner. Are you talking about fy '08 for us to do more work in fy-08 or are you talking about fy '09.
>> it is a policy now and I think Commissioner eckhardt so should at it as far as this is your policy and I don't want too take your show but if we need loo stock at compensation stuff we can look at it but you can go ahead.
>> I think the intention here is to essentially memorialize what happened with hr. It was a circumstance way department saw a need, and did the research to discover that the first prong was amicable that they were seeing significant turnover rate far in excess what the county turnover rate was. So this policy would just memorialize that process we already saw organically come about, which is the division came forward and said we're having significant turnover, we've looked at it and don't see any other explanation exempt that they are below pay grade, they're below the market, our local market. Will you, hr, take a quick look. We will take a look and bring you everything we can find and we're asking to you corroborate it. This wouldn't and policy that is automatically initiated by hr. It would be on the initiation of the department that shows a clear need and comes to hr and lay it is out and says we need to you corroborate this. We have, we already know we have turnover rates, you go out and corroborate or local market is below 20%, more than 20% below, we think it is and here are our numbers.
>> my question was just the cost for you to analyze what she just stated. What would it cost as far as being an increase that --
>> Commissioner Davis, we could probably absorb it but I don't want to be on record for saying that.
>> I was trying to pin you down
>> [laughter]
>> what we would say is we would know that based on the turnover problems that departments would be bringing to us, some challenges we would face in recruiting for a particular position so we would basically know and would be able to confirm whether or not such titles our job family would merit an interim-type review. One 67 the things that this -- one of the things that this particular proposal would do is set a framework for hr to function by because we often get requests to take a look at single title he wills and the market and based on the plan we've been under we've not had the flexibility to make that type of move. This would bring clarification to not only the departments but hr while addressing the business needs of the departments.
>> the reason why I suggest it be below the local market by 20% is for the very reasons the local market would be much easier to assess. It's not perfect, but it's a, it's a much more attainable number in a shorter period of time.
>> okay.
>> this leaves out two important factors, I think. One is, you know, what made the, those actions doable was that the departments said they could fund them internally, otherwise, I don't know that the Commissioner's court would have had interest in pursuing it. It would have been a waste of time had the departments not had the money so how do we address that?
>> if the court wishes to add a criteria on here.
>> seems to me that we need to. The other thing is that a lot of the work has been done because we were presented some of those facts at the end of last year's budget process. I mean, so we knew, basically, they were way below market, and last year, I think it was called to our attention too late in the budget process to act on last year. I'm sitting here wondering, if we follow our policy of surveying one-third of the workforce annually, I don't know that hrmd will have the capacity to take on additional work if it's substantial. Now, this kind of group this year, I thought we were talking about 20 or 30 positions, we ended up acting on how many? A couple hundred, didn't we?
>> oh, yes, in terms of actual positions, yes, sir.
>> what I thought was a 40 to $50,000 problem ended up costing 3 or 400,000. All together. Still, the money was there in the budget of the different departments but it became an '09 issue for us because we have to do the annualize the amount. So I mean, I don't know that hrmd really should simply respond to departments because they come and say I believe we meet the criteria that the court adopted. In those intages we looked at, Commissioner as court kind of directed they be placed ahead of the other work, so do we drop that and anticipate that the court would look at this? Or is that the department of hrmd?
>> I anticipated the court would look at it because of the other factors to consider.
>> I would list that and certainly cover the funding otherwise we send the wrong message to the departments.
>> perhaps it should be three-prong test, number three being the ability to fund internally.
>> I certainly that I should be in there.
>> I think that would be absolutely appropriate. The other factors to be considered, the three-prongs test would be a threshold test to bring it to the Commissioner's court and the Commissioner's court would decide other factors if it should be bumped to the front of the line, if you will.
>> it would be illustrated is that you would add amended by adding a third prong which would be the department will look at internal funding, as far as the other prongs. Is that correct?
>> um up.
>> that because that is where it fits well. And the other factor to consider would be the fief one, Commissioners court needs to review and give direction.
>> the problem is every time we try to give one category of employees fair treatment we sort of adversely impact another one. As a result of taking that action there is another group that says basically we should have been included and based on the case they're making they probably should have.
>> and we forget about the domino effect.
>> I would second Commissioner eckhardt's motion if you would like to put it in the form of a motion.
>> I would move a three-prong objective test the job family is above the average turnover rate by 60% to the average pay rate within that particular position classification or series of comparable positions below the marketplace pay rate by 20% or more. And three, the department has the ability to fund the increase in pay internally. If it meets those three criteria, then it comes to Commissioners court to consider whether or not that job family or position classification or job family is bumped to the front of the line, considering a number of factors which include but are not limited to rapid movement in the labor market, labor shortage, exit interview information, management employee complaints or any over relevant conferrings by the court.
>> yes, sir.
>> good morning. Judge, Commissioner, I'm with ask me.
>> good morning, eddie.
>> we will support the criteria that would add the third prong that the only revision we would like to say made son the second step, instead of being 20% more, closer to 15%. That is still a little over two pay grades where employees should be according to market study standards. Hopeful flee three years we will be addressing the market study issue. If after this point, a group is falling below two pay grades where they should be, we feel like that would be a big red flag for the court and the don't start addressing compensation issues against. So once we have compensation issues addressed onces and for all, we believe the 15% would be more than adds adequate as a trigger to start looking at if these particular group of employees need to be addressed. 20% is more likely to pay grades and we believe that is too high of a threshold so we would like to see it adjusted down between the 2 and the 3 and we feel that 15% is more than adequate.
>> the reason why the 20% was chosen is it would show it was an extraordinary circumstance. I'm afraid, and I hate to say this this is not a pretty thing to say, but I'm afraid that putting it at 15% would unravel the sick cell view because we have/cyclical review because we have so many in that position.
>> I agree and we're trying to protect the integrity of the cycle we have now, every three years looking at these job families. But again, I want to go back I think once we have compensation the inequity is fixed that will not and problem as far as being a structural problem. I feel like at that point, the 15%, you're right we could open up a flood gate below the 20% but I would like to see it adjusted back down below 15 because that is two pay grades below where they should so I think once every is in order, that would be adequate.
>> that is a point well taken.
>> it is.
>> and maybe should be taken up again.
>> at a later date, if we start at 20 and address it in the next year or two and come back down to 15 or something more appropriate.
>> okay. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes been a unanimous vote.
>> thank you all.
>> thank you.
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, July 1, 2008 1:51 PM