Mayor's Staff Pay Raises

[Wilbur]

From the Tulsa World:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070304_Ne_A15_Mayor10137

Mayor Kathy Taylor's 13 at-will employees saw raises ranging from 8 percent to 22 percent in January, even though most of them began working for the city less than a year ago.

Four of the employees came to City Hall as recently as August and September.

They also are receiving one-time stipends averaging 2 percent of their salaries when they reach six months with the city.

Perhaps the headline should have read:  Mayor Screws City Employees

I don't often agree with Councilor Christiansen, but I do here.  The Mayor is telling every city employee outside her office that they aren't as good as her at-will employees.  And while the Mayor often touts equality with pay raises, that apparently doesn't apply to her own office.

No other city employee in any department saw percentage pay raises equal to the Mayor's staff.  

"We hired the absolute best people we could find,...  Is she saying she only hires the best people in her office, and the rest of the city hires less then the best?

Taylor said it's about rewarding "a team that gives 150 percent."  Apparently those 'team' emails she sends out every week mean there are only 13 people on her team.  The rest must not be part of the team.

"If they were working in the private sector, they would be making more," she said. "They deserve every penny."  Amen, sister!  Just like every other employee.  I can't tell you how many years I've heard the goal is to bring employees pay to 'average'.  We're still waiting, sister!

[MADASHELL]

Looks like the Mayor's "staff pay increase policy" is similar to her "administrative leave policy." Kiss it and you be rewarded. Refuse to kiss it...and you be gone!

[Double A]

[shadows]

Having already been told that I do not understand the wage policies of the city hall I am ready to admit that in view of this round of wage increases I do not.   We are being told that these persons, being underpaid, are entitled to be paid a competitive wage as in private industry.  At 52 work weeks in the year of 40 hours is 2080 hours and many employees are working for less that $10 dollars an hour which would be $ 20,800 dollars yearly with limited health insurance.  

What was the rebuttal on raising the national minimum wage?

Someone raised the question before the election if the mayor was a citizen of two cities.   She may be thinking she is mayor of another city.    

[RecycleMichael]

Look at the link in the story that goes directly a spreadsheet of the pay of every city employee.

Only six people on the Mayor's staff now make over $67,000 per year and each of those oversee large departments. Exactly 100 employees in the police department make over $69,000 per year.

Using percentage as method of comparing is not an accurate way to measure salary increases here.

I don't feel compelled to defend the way the raises were given, but I don't think you can make the case for the Mayor overpaying without looking at what others are paid in city government and the private sector.

I wonder if the Tulsa World is going to do the same story and spreadsheet for all Tulsa County employees.

[Wilbur]

Using percentage as method of comparing is not an accurate way to measure salary increases here.

Then what would be fair?  Someone making $82,000 getting an 8% raise is already going to get a larger dollar amount increase then some person getting an 8% raise making $40,000.  But an equal percentage increase is fair to everyone.

The ethical thing to do is one of two things:  Increase all city employees' pay the same percentage the Major just did for her staff, or, increase the Mayor's staff pay the same as the rest of the employees.

This Mayor and her budget director fought each employee group tooth and nail until they finally lost to an arbitrator.  Even then, the budget director was telling the city council to deny the pay raises.  Anybody want to bet the budget director never said a peep when the Mayor proposed her staffs' pay raises.

And out of curiosity, and I'm asking because I don't know:  Did these raises just get done this week and were retroactive to Jan 1, or were the raises started on Jan 1 and someone finally leaked the story?

I don't think you can make the case for the Mayor overpaying without looking at what others are paid in city government and the private sector.

Then why on earth does that only apply to her staff?

[MH2010]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Look at the link in the story that goes directly a spreadsheet of the pay of every city employee.

Only six people on the Mayor's staff now make over $67,000 per year and each of those oversee large departments. Exactly 100 employees in the police department make over $69,000 per year.

Using percentage as method of comparing is not an accurate way to measure salary increases here.

I don't feel compelled to defend the way the raises were given, but I don't think you can make the case for the Mayor overpaying without looking at what others are paid in city government and the private sector.

I wonder if the Tulsa World is going to do the same story and spreadsheet for all Tulsa County employees.

Are you saying that police employees should not make over $69,000.00 a year?  

In addition, are you now saying that everyone needs to look at what others are paid in the city government and private sector regardless of budgetary issues. From what I've read, the mayor and city counsel are still looking for "efficiencies"(sp?)in all departments to pay for our raises. Now the mayor has raised the pay for her chosen few?  

Are we seeing the beginning of a new "Have and have not" system in city government? Where the mayor's friends get paid a competative wage and the others have to fight through arbitrations (paid for by their union dues, that come out of their below average wages) in a hope to someday have a competative wage?

[RecycleMichael]

Both of you guys (both policemen) are arguing about the Mayor's office raises. I am just arguing that they are finally being paid on an even level with other city employees.

The reason that the percentage increases are high is because the initial pay was so low. This pay now is what it should have been all along. They are also within their budget.

Don't try to say that everybody should get the same pay increase and act like that is the ethical thing to do. The police got pay raises when city employees got pay cuts (during the LaFortune administration). I didn't hear you claiming ethical raises then.

Our police officers are very well paid (and worth every penny) and I think that the top management of the Mayor's office is now paid what they are worth too.

[MH2010]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Both of you guys (both policemen) are arguing about the Mayor's office raises. I am just arguing that they are finally being paid on an even level with other city employees.

The reason that the percentage increases are high is because the initial pay was so low. This pay now is what it should have been all along. They are also within their budget.

Don't try to say that everybody should get the same pay increase and act like that is the ethical thing to do. The police got pay raises when city employees got pay cuts (during the LaFortune administration). I didn't hear you claiming ethical raises then.

Our police officers are very well paid (and worth every penny) and I think that the top management of the Mayor's office is now paid what they are worth too.

I'm sorry to correct you again but police officers also received a reduction in income during that time.  Police officers voted to take compensitory time for overtime instead of pay. We believed it was the "ethical" thing to do. This cost saving measure saved the city more money than if we would have taken the same pay cut as other employees. Officers did this because we believed the city management and wanted to do our part.  Now,in retrospect, we should have just taken the pay cut like other employees and made it up in paid overtime. After the way the city management has treated us, I don't trust them and I don't think we owe them anything.

They are only within their budget because the millionaire mayor doesn't take a salary.  If a new mayor comes at the next election, the new salaries will bust their budget.  

As far as well paid police officers, we are still 12% under survey.  We aren't even the highest paid police department in the area anymore. Broken Arrow has passed us on portions of our payscale and they don't even require a college degree.

[RecycleMichael]

We have been through this argument before. Yes, you also traded comp time for overtime, but you guys still took pay raises.

The police fight the budget staff for everything and have negotiated well for yourselves, especially in benefits like take-home vehicles for officers living far from the Tulsa city limits.

I am not upset with the fact that you guys are well paid...why do you begrudge others being paid what they are worth?

I see the same pattern developing here that you guys always fight with whomever is Mayor. I can't remember the last time the police endorsed the incumbent in a Mayor's election. This past election you endorsed one candidate in the primary and then another in the general.  Your endorsement wasn't for the candidate, but against the incumbent.

Why do you guys continually go out of your way to start fights with the Mayor's office?

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

We have been through this argument before. Yes, you also traded comp time for overtime, but you guys still took pay raises.

The police fight the budget staff for everything and have negotiated well for yourselves, especially in benefits like take-home vehicles for officers living far from the Tulsa city limits.

I am not upset with the fact that you guys are well paid...why do you begrudge others being paid what they are worth?

I see the same pattern developing here that you guys always fight with whomever is Mayor. I can't remember the last time the police endorsed the incumbent in a Mayor's election. This past election you endorsed one candidate in the primary and then another in the general.  Your endorsement wasn't for the candidate, but against the incumbent.

Why do you guys continually go out of your way to start fights with the Mayor's office?

Because the police are union and the Mayor's office is management. That's the way it works. Union and management never get in bed with each other, regardless of industry.

And I'm not saying that to diss unions in the slightest, that's just the way it is.

[Rico]

I am not defending nor am I condoning  what the Mayor has done............

However; she is working for free this year.. I would think that takes care of any money she has spent lately.

The only negative I can throw in at this point.... and it is really not about the Mayor but the people she relies upon to do the work of the City..

Some, that I have had dealings with, seem to be promoting  an agenda that will gain them favor with the higher ups... The policy they seem to be promoting sounds nothing like the Mayor's Policy... Rather what they feel should be her policy...

IMO she needs to get a handle on this quickly.
In the form of an internal State of the City report.... or possibly something that will re-emphasize her objectives, goals, and priorities........

[MH2010]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

We have been through this argument before. Yes, you also traded comp time for overtime, but you guys still took pay raises.

The police fight the budget staff for everything and have negotiated well for yourselves, especially in benefits like take-home vehicles for officers living far from the Tulsa city limits.

I am not upset with the fact that you guys are well paid...why do you begrudge others being paid what they are worth?

I see the same pattern developing here that you guys always fight with whomever is Mayor. I can't remember the last time the police endorsed the incumbent in a Mayor's election. This past election you endorsed one candidate in the primary and then another in the general.  Your endorsement wasn't for the candidate, but against the incumbent.

Why do you guys continually go out of your way to start fights with the Mayor's office?

LaFortune gave us the take-home car policy (25 mile radius)during negotiations so we wouldn't go to arbitration for more pay.  I believe the city knew we would win an arbitration(like we did last year)so they gave us the 25 mile radius and hoped we would take it instead. We did.

Our negotiation power comes from the two things. The fire and police arbitration act 11 O.S. 51-101 et seq. and the fact that we are at the bottom of our 10 city survey. If the city ever raised our salary to a competative wage with the other cities, we would lose alot of our negotiating power. In fact, you probably would never hear from us.

As far as other people getting paid what they are worth, we are all for it. However, I find it sad and a low blow that the millionaire mayor decided to give her friends raises to get them up to survey before she helps out the other city workers who have lived thru pay-cuts and lay-offs.

The reason we haven't endorsed an incumbent for mayor since before Susan Savage is because all the mayors we have had have promised us things and haven't delivered. We never got along with Savage.  Lafortune promised to never settle the BOC lawsuit, get us up to market survey and give us more officers.  LaFortune then agreed to settle the BOC lawsuit (www.tpdd.org shows the lawsuit was without merit by the way) and put us on a hiring freeze for two years.  Mayor Taylor promised more officers and better pay.  When we won arbitration, she was going to fight it and take it to a vote of the people.  We are still waiting for more officers. She has okay'ed two academy classes with 20 officers each.  That won't even keep up with attrition. We don't go out of our way to pick fights with the mayor's office. We just expect people to follow thru with what they say.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

I am not defending nor am I condoning  what the Mayor has done............

However; she is working for free this year.. I would think that takes care of any money she has spent lately.

The only negative I can throw in at this point.... and it is really not about the Mayor but the people she relies upon to do the work of the City..

Some, that I have had dealings with, seem to be promoting  an agenda that will gain them favor with the higher ups... The policy they seem to be promoting sounds nothing like the Mayor's Policy... Rather what they feel should be her policy...

IMO she needs to get a handle on this quickly.
In the form of an internal State of the City report.... or possibly something that will re-emphasize her objectives, goals, and priorities........

Right you are, Rico, she better smarten up. Strange happenings with river corridor zoning, historic preservation easements, and clandestine comp plan update/Alberty apointed river corridor zoning steering committees. Strange days indeed, most peculiar, Brother.

[Double A]

Considering that other city employees who have worked for the city for less than a year did not get the raise, do you think it's fair that the folks on this list who have worked for the city for less than a year get this raise?

BTW, if the Chief Technology Officer is responsible for the City Council and the City websites, he ain't worth the $135,000 he's getting.