Study: City should make pay competitive : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis

GREENSBORO — It will cost the city an extra $1.7 million next year to pay city employees competitive wages, according to research released Thursday.

City Human Resources Director Connie Hammond recommended that the City Council increase pay ranges to keep pace with comparable cities in the Southeast, based on an employee benefit and salary study by consulting firm Aon Hewitt.

Council members will consider those changes, as well as upgrading some employee benefits, in the next few months as they develop the 2012-2013 budget.

“We realize we have a very good staff in this city. All of us are taking it seriously,” City Councilman Jim Kee said of the compensation study. “We are going to do what we can to bring parity.”

The city spent $157,000 on the research.

The study compared pay and benefits for more than 1,500 Greensboro city employee jobs to similar positions in 22 other cities, such as Savannah, Ga., and Newport News, Va.

City leaders started the research about two years ago. They have been concerned that the city may be losing employees to cities with more to offer.

“We want to make sure we remain competitive,” Interim City Manager Denise Roth said.

Of the jobs studied, more than half paid at a competitive rate with the other cities, according to the research.

For the jobs that paid less than a competitive rate, the city staff recommended adjusting salary ranges.

The change would make some existing employees fall below the new starting salary for that job. Hammond suggested increasing their pay to keep pace with the new minimum salaries.

That change and other adjustments recommended based on the research would add $1.7 million to the city’s $124 million annual payroll.

But the gap between Greensboro’s employee wages and other cities was not as bad as leaders feared.

“This is not as high as we thought it would be,” Hammond told council members, who were briefed on the research Thursday.

The city staff and the researchers are still evaluating what pay scale adjustments are needed for specific jobs. Employees should find out in the next few months whether they would get a boost in pay if the adjustments are approved.

The research also showed that Greensboro is generally keeping pace on the types of benefits that it offers employees.

But the consultants also recommended that the city get in line with other municipalities by offering an extra holiday, Veterans Day, bringing the total of holidays off with pay to 10.

The extra holiday would cost the city an estimated $75,000.

Contact Amanda Lehmert at 373-7075 or amanda.lehmert@news-record.com

buzzman

February 17, 2012 - 7:56 am EST

Ordinarily, it would be reasonable for city employees to get raises on a regular basis. However, we aren't living in ordinary times. There are many folks who have not had compensation increases for several years, because their employers simply can't afford it. Recipients of Social Security went several years without an increase while the cost of goods and services has skyrocketed.
The part about increasing compensation in order to retain city employees is a "crock," because very few of those employees have the opportunity to go elsewhere. And if they do leave, so what! There are many qualified unemployed workers that would love those city jobs.
As usual, the City of Greensboro is going to spend money that doesn't need to be spent. Ordinary citizens, who can't even afford the basics, will be picking up the tab.

DonMoore

February 17, 2012 - 8:42 am EST

Well stated and let's not forget that must public workers are already paid more than their private work-force counter-parts. A local weekly publishes the pay for City Workers and it amazes me to see how well paid these individuals are paid. Just because bigger cities pay more, does not justify higher wages.

Traveler

February 17, 2012 - 1:13 pm EST

Government employees receive salary and benefits like retirement.

It's my understanding that city employees receive something like 70% of their final salary when they retire.

Most of the private workforce have things like 401s, IRA, etc.

When added together, the total compensation for most city employees exceeds compensation for private sector workers.

I would favor a higher salary for city workers IF they were to scrap their existing pension plan and have a 401 type retirement instead.

retiree

February 17, 2012 - 2:15 pm EST

You are misinformed. The factor used by the state (it's the State of NC plan) is less than .00185, or something like that , and with 30 years service that means the employee might get in the neighborhood of 53 to 54% of their highest "four" years of pay, not their final pay.

The state plan is much more giving if you happen to be a Register of Deeds (they have an extra bucket for them) and also a District Attorney, and judges get the highest "factor" when computing retirement.

Panacea

February 17, 2012 - 5:59 pm EST

Social Security recipients got a COLA every year but 2009 and 2010 . . . and their 2008 raise was 5.8 due to rising gas prices . . . which prices then dropped precipitously but the 5.8% raise didn't have to be paid back. They got a 3.6% raise in 2011.

I, otoh, have not had a raise since 2008 . . . and I had to pay that raise back (they took the money directly out of my check later on).

It doesn't matter whether the employees are public or private. If the employer can make a raise work, they should. I've seen my real income decline over the past four years because of rising prices. I don't think that I should be told I can't get a little relief just because small employers are in trouble, and the big boys divert all profits to bonuses for executives.

RonaldusMagnus

February 17, 2012 - 8:15 am EST

Hide your wallet, they will be coming for it again, they need to study the pay and benefits of city employees versus private sector companies. They would find that pay and benefits exceed that of the private sector while we are forced to pay for the wasteful and unnecessary spending by government.

jeaniegnc

February 17, 2012 - 10:05 am EST

We keep hearing about all the qualified and experienced people who have lost their jobs and have been out of work for more than a year so I say to the City Workers, be glad you are employed. Forget about increasing pay and benefits because the people who would pickup the tab are struggling just to make end meets. No salary increases and no additional benefits until the economy is better for those of us in the private sector.

acntspell

February 17, 2012 - 10:09 am EST

"At this point, observers generally agree that wages of similarly situated workers are lower in the state-local sector than in the private sector. The disagreement hinges on the extent to which benefits offset the wage penalty. Our re-estimation of the much-used wage equation plus adjustments for proper valuation of pensions and retiree health insurance indicates that the two roughly balance out. The estimated difference nationwide is about 4 percent in favor of private sector workers. In short, for the nation as a whole the difference between public and private sector compensation appears modest. The relatively modest differential should make policymakers cautious about massive changes without carefully studying the specifics of their particular situation."

Not everybody agrees that public sector folks are over paid:
http://slge.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Out-of-Balance_FINAL-REPORT_1...

Enjoy.

brian444

February 17, 2012 - 8:51 pm EST

Yes, you're right: the Center for State and Local Government Excellent (the slge in the url) does not agree with the conventional wisdom on the matter. Shocking, that.

ok then

February 17, 2012 - 10:52 am EST

City employees is a very general statement. Which departments are under paid and by how much? If all city employees are under paid in comparison to similar cities then it sounds like a problem with WHERE we are spending the money and not HOW much.

I am only familiar with the Police dept and how they have been under paid in comparison to other cities for years(before the economy got this bad). Just look up the starting salaries for any surrounding city and do the comparisons your self. Greensboro has a much heavier call load and yet get paid much less. Unlike most surrounding cities, they do not get their own take home cars. they only just recently started letting officers take a car home for three nights during their 4 day shift but still share a car(only 100 of the 600 GPD units benefited from this, which is a start in the right direction). And we all know that city benefits are nothing to go crazy for.(trust me).

My question is.. How can other cities continue to pay their city depts in a bad economy and greensboro cannot. Its one thing to ask for a raise every year and its another to have been under paid for years in comparison to other cities. Just a thought.

Amanda Lehmert

February 17, 2012 - 1:18 pm EST

I asked the same question: what jobs are we talking about here? The city staff and the consultants said it was too early to talk about specific positions because they are still vetting the results. In other words, the don't want to say, for instance (and only as an example), a starting recreation center director should make between $35-$45,000 a year until they determine that is the new range they would like to set for that position.

I promise I will follow up on this when their word wraps up. This particular detail is crucial I believe.

slbr549

February 17, 2012 - 12:24 pm EST

Why should the city employees be treated any differently than any other employees? Competitive wages? Ha. I work for the State and we haven't seen raises in years. I'm sure the private sector hasn't seen any either. In any cases, those of us who are very happy to be employed would like to stay that way, so please don't add taxes that will force business to leave and then force gov't to cut more employees and add to the unemployment payouts.

GSOIG

February 17, 2012 - 1:20 pm EST

The City employees have gone for years without pay increases and there has been a reduction in incentives that retain employees. If you're worried about them suffering during a bad economy, forget it - they have.
We also suffer if we lose employees to other cities. If you want the local government to create an atmosphere that will help produce jobs you want to retain the best personnel possible to do that job.
These people work for you - the City is your corporation, what kind of employer do you want to be?

rooster8786

February 17, 2012 - 1:41 pm EST

A realistic slave driver, just like the real world. Don't like your job, go get another one and stop counting down to retirement day...

February 17, 2012 - 1:23 pm EST

I'm glad to see the addition of Veterans Day.

February 17, 2012 - 2:17 pm EST

I understand they used to have Veteran's Day quite a few years ago, but it was eliminated in favor of adopting Martin Luther King's birthday.

February 17, 2012 - 1:40 pm EST

I did a study too, and I didn't have to pay $150K+ to do it. I just looked at the last 5 years of tax returns. To be competitive, I need a raise of 87%, and a reduction of property taxes of 19%, just to stay equal to where I was in 2005.

If the people who do these "studies" were also forced to explain how to pay for the "results" implementation, as I've NEVER seen a study that doesn't cost the taxpayers, I'm thinking we'd see different outcomes to the study...

1234

February 18, 2012 - 7:22 am EST

HOME RUN...go to council and just state what you did and listen to the crowd and look at their red faces and no words from the "leaders"...I meant empty liberal suits! What is the turn over, if the wages are so bad...that is always a good sign.

Harpo

February 17, 2012 - 3:58 pm EST

Most of these city employees are overpaid anyway. They need to be thankful for what they have and not bellyache because there are 50 people standing in line for every one of these positions if they don't want to work. Take the 1.7 million and put it to a good cause like helping the down and out folks. It is absolutely insane to spend $157,000 to study anything like this, what a bunch of idiots we have in power.

bottechia

February 17, 2012 - 4:04 pm EST

So where is the city suppose to get the extra 1.7 million; arent we still somewhere in the 10% unemployment rage.
I ask how did Greensboro survive all these years paying lower wages and will it really make a difference to the city if they get the increase?

jackhartjj

February 18, 2012 - 1:44 am EST

That was only the first of the money to be urinated away!
Jack

goodtoknow

February 18, 2012 - 10:09 am EST

If this council were a corporation like business, they would be fired. This council is corrupt in that they are using tax payer money to benefit and profit themselves. My opinion of course, but from what I've heard about back room deals and who is friends with whom in the way of contractors and connections, well what else could one assume. They are NOT good stewards of our tax money.

hhdavis

February 19, 2012 - 6:25 pm EST

Well, City Employees work in snow, ice, and in the blazing heat in the summer with very little THANKS. They work long hours during leaf pick up season, and repair frozen water mains at all hours. They are on call and just as important as doctors, however, they are considered the "LOWER INCOME". They have not had raises in over five years....not even cost of living. Most are having trouble feeding their families, working second jobs, and begging for overtime to make ends meet. This decision is long overdue...the city should have valued it's workers long before spending thousands on a study. Their insurance has gone up each year and all other benefits are now nonexistent. Please recognize the dedication and duty of these men and women before they move to neighboring cities to make a little more in their salary.

news-record.com

NEWS