1988-12-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Mee ing Minutes December 27, 1988 Page 7 Council Business continued Sinda explained that in many communities the patrolmen and sergeants are organiz d into the same union contract. In this type of contract. both the patrolmen and the sergeants receive this longevity p y. Over the ye rs. New Brighton1s sergeants had not organized and thus had not rec i ved the , ongevi ty pay and benefi ts a lot of other community's sergeants received. Benke said he problem is not what the patrolmen are being paid versus what the sergeants are pai d; but the pay structure is dictated by the union which classifies the patrolmen as essential employees. When entering into a union negotiation for pay increases. ither the City negotiates the contract or they go to binding arbitration. The City does not have the option of letting the police fficers go on strike. The wage scales are generated by the union n gotiation process which is reinforced by designation as an essentia employee group. Gunderman a ked if this pay scale could be structured by services rendered in tead of the longevity factor. Williams c mmented restructuring the base pay to reflect the longevity f ctor. Benke expla"ned the State has a similar program which is essentially in the same theory as the longevity factor. Williams fe ls the elected body does not have as much control over pay increas s with this longevity factor as compared to a regular system of r nges and steps. Williams as ed why would an average employee who has worked 16 years or more wou d not receive this longevity pay. Sinda said he police do not have to strike every year because they go to arbit ation; but the average employee would have to strike. Council Business Memo of Understandin~ Police Sergeants Report 88-362