Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
relevant concern. From January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014, only 21 Local <br />2201 bargaining unit employees (few of whom were Solo Paramedics), or 3.3% <br />per year over that period, voluntarily resigned (non -retirement) from employment. <br />Even if every single one of these individuals went to work for a higher paying <br />jurisdiction, which they did not, this is still a low turnover rate, especially <br />considering that the turnover rate for the rest of the County is almost twice as <br />high. That the Division is not experiencing a turnover problem is also evidenced <br />by the fact that the average years of service for Local 2201 bargaining unit <br />employees as of the date of this Memorandum is 13.6 years. Likewise, the <br />County is not having any issues recruiting qualified candidates to fill Local 2201 <br />bargaining unit vacancies. In fact, the County has a waiting list of applicants for <br />these positions. Thus, as far as the County is concerned, there is no legitimate <br />basis for spending the additional —$520,000 in wages that Local 2201 seeks, even <br />if the Emergency Services Fund had the money available. <br />Despite the issues raised above, the County continues to try to find ways to reach <br />compromises with Local 2201. The Special Magistrate heard 2 days of testimony <br />and considered well over a thousand pages of documents in making his <br />recommendation. This included all of Local 2201's evidence regarding <br />comparable entities and turnover. While Local 2201 refers to the Special <br />Magistrate in derogatory terms (as they do anyone with whom they disagree) the <br />fact remains that the Special Magistrate attempted to reach a reasonable resolution <br />to the issue of wage increase. Given this, the County is modifying its proposal to <br />incorporate the essence of the Special Magistrate's recommendation. <br />Accordingly, I recommend that the BCC adopt the County's proposal on ¶34.02, <br />attached hereto as Exhibit P, which provides the following: <br />(A) FY 2013-14: no COLA or step increase; (b) FY 2014-15: a 3% COLA <br />increase, a 5% step increase under the existing step plan, and a $1500 <br />lump sum payment for topped -out employees (paid in $500 increments <br />upon ratification, May 1, 2015 and July 1, 2015) effective on ratification <br />of the CBA; and (c) FY 2015-16: a cost -of -living increase, if any, <br />mutually agreed to by the County and Local 22014, and a 2.5% step <br />increase under the County's proposed new step plan. <br />4 Local 2201 has raised the concern that the BCC cannot legally impose a provision whereby the bargaining unit <br />employees receive the same cost -of -living increases, if any, provided to general non -bargaining unit employees <br />under the County Administrator's purview. The County has modified its position to alleviate Local 2201's concern. <br />23 <br />23 <br />