Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, September 6, 2011 (Agenda)
Item A1
You you you let's call up a-1, consider and take appropriate action to could be vert by beakly pay -- convert by weekly payroll or semimonthly payroll.
when this item came to court two weeks ago, we sort of implicitly committed to bring it back in August as requested, and mike and I a consideration last Thursday, not on the agenda then so I put it on as an "added item," we missed the August deadline.
>> did you want to start, I think everybody has the back up that we did distribute quickly after we learned that it would be on for today.
do you want to say some opening remarks, todd?
no?
>> I think we all know, you know, the issue and I believe the, in conjunction with the auditor's office determined if which do go bi-weekly, prime time is January of 2012, it is a matter of timing of employee's paychecks.
as we all know, if we go bi-weekly, there is a period of time that employees will have a little bit less income because they're paid on a two 46 week-ws versuses half month.
the chart shows it fluctuates during the year, as far as when the employee is paid more or less during that period of time.
do you have anything to add to that?
>> just ally minder that basically this is going to add two paychecks a year for employees but of the other paychecks are about 7.35% lower than before.
>> 7%.
>> 7%.
obviously, the total pay would be the same.
>> what is our drop-dead date for pulling the trigger on this?
I realize there is confusion and concern and frankly, some panic out there.
>> I think the drop-dead date is around the project and it is kind of now.
you know, when we brute this up, we had set we really needed to know by the end of August in order to be able to implement this by January 1.
I can the thing for you all to know, as far as the project goes, this isn't, you know, we really just need a decision.
it is real important to make it before we implement, because if you have any interest in going to bi-weekly payroll, 2 is going to be really expensive to do even after we're up because we're going to have to do quite a bit of could be figuration around the -- configuration around the semimonthly, due how many people are hourly employees and how besmooth that.
so it's not a deal breaker, if you all stay with semimonthly.
what would really end up costing you quite a bit bet in the end back to move some time afternoon that to -- after that to bi-weekly.
>> do we even have a ballpark figure of what it costs us to do semimonthly?
my understanding from the back up,ed a ibm -- administrativelyt is expensive and the employee said going to two-week payroll cycles you get the same exact amount of money over 9 course ofs year, it is just distributed differently.
I understand that is causing panic but I would luke to know what is 9-dollar number, generally speaking, of what we're spending to stay on this traditional smoothing process we do.
>> I really can't tell you from the perspective of what we will be in the project because we have in the requirements that we continue to do semimonthly pay low, so they have to do any configuration programming in order for us to do that.
the trade off is, we do a lot of that manually right now, adjustments that happen to people.
if you're paid on an hourly by a says and we make any adjustments to your pay or you go son leave without pay, reit now right nows all manual process.
we can configure the system to do all of those manual calculations automatically.
>> I can know we can do it but I would hate for us not to go to a more efficient, productive system, out of practice decision and panic -- tradition and panic.
>> I guess I can't put a supplies tag on if we kept doing it the way we're doing it because we will be able to do that with what we're paying for befit.
the part that is costly is if we make policy checks to things going forward because we're going to have to do a lot of maintenance testing.
we've not going to be able to just quickly make those adjustments.
because of the con figure situation figurations thing f -- configuration things we would do.
I wish we could answer your question but we're not in the blueprinting phase yet of hr payroll, we don't start that until this coming January.
>> with regard to -- let me try and phrase this a different way.
with regard to the no action option, is it, am I readings back up correctly that our current procedure, and what our future procedure under our current policy would be is less efficient and costs more administrative hours than if we went to two week pay cycles?
>> I think that's true, but I wouldn't be able to come up with what the costs are.
>> I think if we were just starting a best or organization, we would go to bi-weekly, people understand it, employees get a check every other Friday, paid for the hours they work.
as of now, employees are paid 86.7 hours per paycheck and they don't understand that.
it is difficult to explain.
employees with overtime or comp time have to wait long every to get credited if the beak is split between two pay periods.
under bi-weekly, you're working full weeks so they would get the overtime or comp time on the next pay period.
it is much easier to understand for employees and much easier to administer because every pay period is a two-week cycle.
some are maybe 11 days, maybe 12 days, maybe 9 days depending on the month of the year you're working on so it is more difficult to explain to employees 9 way overtime works, why 2 takes longer to get it.
administratively, rate now, under the system if someone is out for a portion of the pay period, that's a manual calculation, in other words, depending what pay 36th you're in, for example if you leave without pay, in an 11 day cycle, that is a percentage 6 that 12 days, so it is harder to explain to employees.
if you went to bi-weekly, it is always based on the number of hours in that week and always 80 hours for.
>> full-time employee, each psych d.l.
>> employees would be better able to track their own paycheck and advocate, if they see they're not getting the hours they're due.
>> much easier to explain and administer.
there is two extra pay periods in the year that time keepers in payroll have to?
do but with explaining it and adjustments, I think that payroll and most time keepers would say it is easier to go to bi-week lie, even though there are two extra pay cycles in a yeah.
>> employees that e-mailed me don't see it that way.
and when they learned that for 10 months you get 7% less and two months you get more, what sounds out to them is 7% less -- let me finish.
10 months out of 12, and for two month, you get more and it looks like for 2012 those two months would be June and November, but for the roast of the time, the 7% is what is a pretty big hit.
and in terms 6 how they administer this, the sheriff's office says 2 would be a much bigger nightmare for them than the current system, and I guess they deal more with overtime just because the number of employees and the nature of the work than any other county department, to my knowledge.
>> I can't speak for the sheriff's office, as far as what they've said.
it is hard to quantify, as mike said, but it just -- my gut feeling is that 95% of the employees would much rather see a paycheck every other Friday.
>> the facts don't support that.
>> that's not true.
there's some panic and misinformation out there so that's why I asked what the drop dead is on in because I'm getting conflicting reports from the sheriff's department and management and union and what not, my understanding, some folks have legitimate concerns that I heavy that other folks have those concerns dispelled.
>> and the facilities employees and the, yeah, the facilities, then 10-rf microdevices 10-r eme rank and file and not the management or mid management but the rank and file.
they have all expressed concern that they would not favor this system.
and I think we knead to really work on something that helps all employees.
I know that top management would like do it this way perhaps, and they can handle the paychecks different lie, differently, but rank and file employees cannot, that's the story they're telling me, and I would not like to put them in the position they have to go out and get into that system of payday loans, which is just really horrible.
now there is car title loans these shops being set up everywhere.
my turn is not get employees into that kind of ugly cycle.
and then they already are usedto budgeting on the 15th of the month and on the last of the month and paying rent, mortgage, other set expenditures.
and then they can always balance a little better with two paychecks, 15th and the last, because that's when those kinds of payments are due.
and the other I think, I think we're talking apples and oranges when we talk about all employees in traf employees in Travis County.
we all have different ways of doing thicks because of our pay and I can that 7% is a lot.
our increases every month are 3% each year.
3%.
that is two year's worth you, almost, of raises they would be losing.
>> but they're not losing them.
>> yes, they are, because we're not giving them.
>> you get the same pay over 9 course of the year.
and rather than having to artificially smooth it, it just comes in two-week increments.
>> but if you haven't given an employee 3s if every% for two years that is a -- 3% for two years that is a loss.
>> that is a completely different issue.
>> I am aconcerned about what they would lose with this new system.
>> you have to realize the chart shows that, you know, the first paycheck pay be 7% less but you catch up and end up having more in the bi-weak lie forly for a f time because of the difference when the pay dates fall.
you're right, the first month people will be out net pay.
>> I think they will be out most of the month.
>> the first five months.
>> so we're clear.
and the other thing, this doesn't have anything to do with bi-weekly payroll but beth brought up you the lars title, it is are the thenineties because January is slightly different, there is a little money that comes to them in January when you make the change.
but during those months it is less, it is 7.7% less because that is the difference between 24 checks and 26 checks.
on top of it, if they go back to the social security deductions that we think they're going to, that's going to mean another two to 2.35% 2.5% less, so what alln favor he really talking about is almost like 10% less, and then that still is made up.
you know, for the whole year, you would have the same amount of money.
it is a little more in the first year, actually, you would have a little bit more from bi-weekly but any ore year after that it would be exactly the same for the year.
but it is only two months 6 the year that you would be getting that extra paycheck and that makes up for all of the difference you didn't get in the over months.
I want to be clear, that is how it really works.
>> you are paid more time over the covers of the year.
the lower percentage in some of your paychecks, correct?
>> that is right.
the other thick, just my opinion because I've read the survey a couple times now, you know, my read on it meet be different from someone else's, but when I look at it, I see of the majority of people that responded favorably to the bi had the i-weekly payroll.
when you look at their comments for the most part, I would call them lukewarm.
they are more or less indifferent.
their answers were fine with it or we don't really care either way.
when you look at the, say, 35% against it, they're by a against it.
so you have sort of just, to put that in prefer speck 26% perspe, there is a majority if you go by the survey but they're not really --
>> they're lukewarm.
>> yes.
and on the over hand, if you look at the people against it, it is minority but a large minority and they're more seriously concern 8th with the - concerned with the issue.
>> when you tell people, that group concerns me.
I mean, I'm one of those that hey, whatever the majority wants to do is fine with me so let's go for it.
but if you really are living paycheck to paycheck, making a 7% decrease for five months is a big deal.
although that is made up in 6 sixth month so every 12-month period you catch up but you're suffering for five months and then bun month you're doing really we well I and then five months that hit.
I don't see any reason to change it.
it has come up every year for 21 years so I think we ought to put it to rest one way or the other.
rate now of the status quo is to pay you twice monthly.
is there a motion to do differently?
>> I move that we go to two-week pay cycle.
>> is there a second?
he yes, sir?
is there a second?
that motion dies for lack of a second.
Commissioner Davis?
>> judge, I really, I've heard different version of this throughout the year, in fact, when this first came up, I'm the one that brought it up a long time ago but there bass probably a predecessor before we that brought it up about 10 years ago.
but this time around I heard from a lot of folks.
that with a say they want it, some say they didn't want it but I think the I think that got me was the low income folks because I heard from some of them and I talked to some on the other end, that's not receiving the money and what kind of impact it would have on them and I think commission ergo Gomez and those folks.
and then again, you want to make sure they get the full measure of what we are able to do for them during the tough economic times, and they're tough.
and when you look at this particular situation and we looked at the chart and we looked at all the back up, but then, again, you hear from the people, then that makes a difference.
when I refer it, didn't hear the concerns as I'm hearing now, and of course I made a motion and I didn't get a second on mine years ago.
it died for lack of a second.
but, I did not hear from the lower end people, otherwise I never would have probably went in that direction, how it is going to impact the lower income people, employees, not people, but employees of Travis County who we have always try 20th make whole, ion during our compensation deal, we always make sure they never make less than whatever the hourly wage is.
we've looked at it like that.
no undere one in Travis County will make list than an hourly wage-type situation.
two, why do we do that?
when we gave percentages of compensation to folks, employees of Travis County, there were some that didn't come up to the hourly wage situation.
those persons that set in a situation where they will have months of making less salary and do okay, all right, we're going to make up for it later on but what do you do for those other months?
what do you do for those real live months that you're making less, that you're making less or bringing home less than what you are later than the other months that you are, maybe catch up for those times that you lost.
so it is kind of a concern to me.
you have' got maybe nine months of less, three months maybe of making more, something like that.
so 2 kind of concerns me about the low income.
I keep saying low income, the low paid employees 6 Travis County, by we always try make whole as much as we possibly can.
so I'm not going to support this he is, this motion that was made, died lack of a second, but I just want to do this for the low-paid employees of Travis County to let them know that we're thinking about the economic hardships and we'll try to make sure they meet that and they don't get short changed some of the month of the year where they would be if we go any other direction than we're going.
we've got include the person on the lower compensation spectrum of what we're doing here.
>> just a summary, judge.
as we're breaking up the new system and our programming different things, there will be a number 6 policy issues we're bringing forth.
this is a complex one, which is why we brought it to you.
this is one part.
administration efficiency is important but not the only thick.
when people are unhappy or you disrupt your workforce, there is a cost to that, as well.
we're bricking them forward, not advocating or not but issues we need to bring to your attention.
while we're deciding how to program the new system.
this is one.
there will be others as we go on because what we want is a full vetting from you all as to the policy implications of what we put in the system, it is more than just a programming.
so I think you all will brick up really good points, you're looking at the organization as a whole.
we've all felt that ourselves and wanted you to have a say in this.
as mike said, the worse thing would be to program what we're doing now and then two years down the road say, you know what, why didn't we go to bi-weekly and now we've wasted money going back with programming.
so these shall the kind of issues we will bring forward as we go along, and thank everyone for looking at it and thank you and employees, I can you've got good feedback.
we just have some mechanical things you, like if you're going to do it, there are certain departments you have to do it.
>> for some more come indicatedded issue -- come indicated issues, if we can have a window to discuss this with employees, I think this was too language an issue and to complicated for the time period we devoted to it.
>> we've looked at this issue almost every year.
>> and there are a lot of things combined and Commissioner Davis make at good point, we're really in hard times.
people feel differently than they might have two or three years ago.
can you reeducate everyone?
you can but it is not easy and people are hurting now.
>> and I really wish, I know 9 director is not able to be here but I really wanted to hear from her on this, and because that survey and when she did talk with the lower paid employees, which is significant, we have quite a few employees that don't make the mega bucks and not into it, I'm not saying anybody will make mega bucks but there are folks here --
>> [laughter] not calling no names.
we have folks struggling now and I want to make sure we can do, to lessen the impact of these struggles, economically, as much as possible.
I think this is the right thing to do right now.
maybe later, I don't know, but I can't see it.
>> I want to speak a little bit toward your comment about getting feedback from the director's meetings.
it is unfortunate she on vacation but she did brief some of the staff on how those meetings went.
particularly the two main meetings with the employees and tnr.
as I understand it, she went to one side in the east and one in the west.
as she explained it to me, the first meeting, initially there was a pretty large amount of opposition to this move and as she lalled out the business case, a lot of people changed their minds as they heard the details 6 of it.
by the time it was brought back to see what type of support it would have, I believe it was a 50/50.
oddly enough, the other eexcellent that she had over the east side, she was anticipating a greater resistance than what she found initially when they presented it and there was a pretty large amount of support for the idea, so 2 seems to be bun 6 those issues -- so it seems to be one of those issues, mike is right, those against it are much more vocal, much more passionate about it but it seems to be an issue as employees get more 66th indicated, they realize for many they are taxpayers and seem to favor it more, for Commissioner Eckhardt, you're right, we may have been better off with more time for that issue.
>> I'm told those that attended a meeting may have heard an under statement of the monetary impact, that in fact, they were not told they would be looking at seven to 8% lest less for 10 month as year, all those that difference would be made up the over two pay chicks.
to me, that is probably the most important fact.
and I will feel a whole lot better, I guess, if I thought an over if over we willing we whelming majority of employees would be split.
>> you think we took the right action in not supporting the motion made.
>> thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
>> we will continue to pay as we have paid.
as inter rum direct every, which move pretty fast and smooth here, so --
>> [laughter]
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.
