Express News: City Manager Sheryl Sculley proposes cost-of-living raises PLUS incentive pay for SA executives (San Antonio: middle-class, how much)

[ged_782]

Originally Posted by Hoot Owl

"Sculley said giving executives a standard COLA is important because otherwise higher health insurance premiums could leave some of them bringing home less money than they earn today."

Welcome to the real world. I bet most employees are in that situation. And on top of that, many (most?) employers are passing more insurance costs on to their employees while simultaneously decreasing coverage and/or raising out-of-pocket expenses.

We're all getting squeezed.

As far as City employees, they will all be seeing higher medical premiums in 2011. Even the "economy" plan that had no employee-paid premium for legacy employees with employee-only coverage, will now have premiums deducted from employees pay.

The last pay increase for City employees, executive or otherwise, was two years ago. Maybe the most equitable thing to to would be a 2 percent across-the-board increase for all, and cancel the executive-only "Incentive" increase for 2011. I really don't have a problem with executives getting a modest performance-based increase, as long as the funding is there. At any rate, it sounds like the ball is in City Council's court.

[RodLu]

"Express News: City Manager Sheryl Sculley proposes cost-of-living raises PLUS incentive pay for SA executives"




Ooooo.....I've been *waiting* for someone to post about Sheryl Sculley.......

[sapphire]

As of this moment, there are 25 comments posted at mysa.com, and 25 of them (that means ALL of them) are against the pay raises. She needs to back off.

[kevcrawford]

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

SA Express News
By Josh Baugh

City Manager Sheryl Sculley is proposing a cost-of-living raise plus incentive pay for the city's executives, a request that some council members fear may not sit well with rank-and-file employees.

In August, Sculley suggested the city's >>102 executives<< — mostly department directors, assistant directors and assistant and deputy city managers — receive performance-based incentive pay instead of the standard 2 percent cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, she was recommending for the vast majority of the city's civilian employees.

Pay raises about to raise a fuss <<Remaining article
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

She "short-changed the executives"? Seriously?

The fleecing of the working-class (poor) and the middle class continues on! Even as as some politicians (on one side aisle) want the Bush tax cuts for millionaires extended!

Yes...."short changing the executives". This city is in VERY good shape compared to the rest of the nation. Could it possibly be because we have a good crew running it? Maybe, maybe not. But reality is that they're not getting a 50% raise. It's a cost of living increase, which MOST companies do.

Instead of just getting upset when someone besides you gets a raise, take a step back and look at it logically. Should we try to keep those that have helped our city run successfully? Or should we scrap them and get cheap labor with no track record or experience?

It's more than "ooohhhh....someone's getting a raise". If they deserve it, pay them. If they don't, fire them and find someone better.

And for the tax cuts...you have no grasp of economics and spout only talking points. Those tax cuts being removed would have a large hit on me and many folks you know, and I'm not even close to being a millionaire. I'm a middle class working stiff like you.

How about we just stop spending inane amounts of money on ridiculous projects that benefit nobody. Then we can stop taxing EVERYONE as much.

But then the mighty entitlement programs would have to go away, and who would the politicians find to line their pockets then?

[dvlpr]

Originally Posted by kevcrawford

Yes...."short changing the executives". This city is in VERY good shape compared to the rest of the nation. Could it possibly be because we have a good crew running it? Maybe, maybe not. But reality is that they're not getting a 50% raise. It's a cost of living increase, which MOST companies do.

Instead of just getting upset when someone besides you gets a raise, take a step back and look at it logically. Should we try to keep those that have helped our city run successfully? Or should we scrap them and get cheap labor with no track record or experience?

It's more than "ooohhhh....someone's getting a raise". If they deserve it, pay them. If they don't, fire them and find someone better.

Excellent post.

Sculley has done a fantastic job of running this city during her time. Cost-of-living increases are (at the least) appropriate for staff members that have helped in this.

The complaining about public employees being well-paid is hilarious. Would you really want poorly-paid/skilled workers managing the resources of your city? If it's that easy to do...and you think the money's so great...then go apply for a job with CoSA.

[Spock's Beard]

Originally Posted by Bowie

Don't forget what a bargain San Antonio's city council reps and mayor are at $10/meeting $25/meeting respectively. Who would the city be able to hire as head of... say the the Parks Department, if the executive pay was that small?

Yeah they only get paid that, but they get reimbursements for EVERYTHING. They make good money through reimbursements. Dedicate a new bus stop? Reimbursed a couple of grand. Take a trip? Reimbursed again. Go to a charity to raise "awareness" (but don't actually donate or spend anything) for some rare type of frog? Get reimbursements.


I remember watching some city council meeting over a decade ago where they were giving themselves reimbursements for damn near everything. They all but did "I printed out this piece of paper asking for a reimbursement for the cost and personal time and expenses of printing out this piece of paper, so I need a reimbursement for it."

[TexHwyMan]

The same people that think that civil servants should work for slave wages are the first ones complaining that government is inefficient and incompetant. It's the old addage "you can have stuff done fast, cheap, or right-- pick two."

If you want good government, you need to pay the people who work in government (and do a good job) appropriately.

[Bo]

Originally Posted by Spock's Beard

Yeah they only get paid that, but they get reimbursements for EVERYTHING. They make good money through reimbursements. Dedicate a new bus stop? Reimbursed a couple of grand. Take a trip? Reimbursed again. Go to a charity to raise "awareness" (but don't actually donate or spend anything) for some rare type of frog? Get reimbursements.

Isn't that common at most workplaces? Everywhere I've ever worked, if I traveled, I got reimbursed for travel. Reimbursements weren't profit for me, they were replacing money that came out of my pocket that I spent to do something that benefitted the job or on behalf of my employer.

[xsa210tx]

Originally Posted by TexHwyMan

The same people that think that civil servants should work for slave wages are the first ones complaining that government is inefficient and incompetant. It's the old addage "you can have stuff done fast, cheap, or right-- pick two."

If you want good government, you need to pay the people who work in government (and do a good job) appropriately.

Is is necessary for 102 executives to ALL get a cost-of-living raise plus incentive pay though? I certainly don't mind paying somebody what they are worth and all but for 102 people?

[kevcrawford]

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

Is is necessary for 102 executives to ALL get a cost-of-living raise plus incentive pay though? I certainly don't mind paying somebody what they are worth and all but for 102 people?

Cost of living raises are usually afforded to those making just enough money to get by, so they can then afford to keep paying mortgage, etc. Usually around 3%. So...yes...all of them.

If they don't deserve a cost of living raise, they're probably not good enough to be in the job anyway and should be fired.

If they're a productive employee, they deserve it.