Poll: Do you Support 'Incentive' Raises for Managers?
Are merit-based raises for managers, non-union staff in Ridgewood an example of good government? Vote in our poll.
If it passes a vote on Jan. 16, about $50,000 in tax dollars could find its way into the pockets of some of Ridgewood's highest paid employees on a "merit" standard.
The village council last Wednesday introduced an ordinance that will allow compensation of up to 1.9 percent in salary for 2012 and 2013 for non-union and management staff. The compensation – based ultimately on the village manager's recommendation – will increase pension obligations. The village manager himself is not eligible. Salaries in a strict sense are frozen by the pair of ordinances.
It's argued the incentive increases are in line with the rate of inflation and promote a semblance of equality, as unionized colleagues are receiving raises and their raises are not based on merit.
But does it instead illustrate an out-of-touch village leadership that didn't listen to the public outcry when the same plan – albeit at 4 percent, not 1.9 – was hatched last year?
Mayor Paul Aronsohn previously voted against an ordinance that provided up to 4 percent of salary retroactive to 2010 and in 2011. At the time, Aronsohn called on department heads to "show leadership" during hard financial times, saying many residents were not receiving any raises.
On Wednesday night, he said the newly-introduced ordinances were different because they're not retroactive and are smaller in scale.
"It seeks to establish a new standard – one that balances the needs of employees with the economic reality faced by the village," he said of the new ordinances. "Gone are the days of four percent salary increases."
What do you think? Should department heads and other non-union staff receive "merit" raises?
J.C. Lee
8:58 am on Monday, December 17, 2012
Merit pay increases in the public sector are nothing more than an open door to political patronage and cronyism. So called merit increases will go to those who serve the politics not the people. Elected public officials cannot be trusted to dole out merit pay for the right reasons. Not in Ridgewood and not in any other community.
Ridgewood Mom
11:58 am on Monday, December 17, 2012
Yes. Merit pay is a bad idea, particularly for these sorts of areas of employment. Attempts to model such workplaces after free market investment principles, in this sort of way, fail because they are entirely artificial. Pay checks aren't really divvied out according to "the market." They are only given by the decisions of a person with power. Its all just pretend.
Persons who receive such bonuses will not do better because they receive them or work harder, in a meaningful way, in order to get them, and persons who do not receive such bonuses will most likely become demoralized because others have received them and they haven't. This will likely cause them to put less of themselves into their work. Such employees function out of dedication, or lack thereof, to what they do. Good management, for such work, lies in finding ways to nurture that sense dedication.
Just give uniform raises across the board and treat the employees with dignity and respect.
Alfreddie
9:02 am on Monday, December 17, 2012
Compensation is a complex matter and this vote is too simple to really reflect the entire true compensation picture. We do learn from it that Village residents are not in favor of generous increases.
Pay is not only tied to the rate of inflation and/or merit. There are many other factors to consider. Market pricing, structure of existing ranges, etc. etc. Who can know what is appropriate if we are not sure that the whole structure and the current rate of pay for particular roles are based on sound compensation practices? For example, if a role is over paid in this market, the rate of inflation is not an issue. If it is underpaid or appropriately paid, that's another thing.
Having worked in industry, it is important that the whole compensation system including the individual roles (as they change in scope and accountability) be monitored, analyzed and kept up to date over years.
Oliver Train
9:02 am on Monday, December 17, 2012
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. The proposal is not to give everybody a 1.9%, or 4%, or whatever raise...the point is (at least I hope it is) to take a step towards giving raises based on individual performance rather than length of service or a formula based on what employees as a whole receive. That is generally how the Business world works, and I think is a good thing for the Government too.
That being said, it's of course very important to have a fair method of determining who gets what. Businesses develop ways to set goals for employees and measure how well people meet them. Similar processes must exsist here too or the incentive raises will simply end up being a popularity contest with the Village Manager doling out the prizes.
Ridgewood Mom
4:13 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I understand the point here Oliver, and what you are saying. But I prefer that raises be given based on the traditional "length of service" or "formula based on what employees as a whole receive" terms, as you put it, rather then based on what you call "individual performance." I think that sort of system works better for the types of "government" work that we are talking about here then do attempts to try to model things superficially upon a so called "business world" model.
Alfreddie
9:39 am on Monday, December 17, 2012
I think we don't know if "a lot of people are missing the point here", or that they don't have the option in the survey as it is written to express their views. I like to believe the residents of Ridgewood are pretty smart... generally.
Surveys are a challenge to design. This one is impossible for me to answer for exactly the reasons you state above. The thing is that your explanation was not offered to us and it's risky to vote for something assuming that is a step towards something, when it may be a mis-step completely.
What if the town is not thinking as you hope?
Oliver Train
11:41 am on Monday, December 17, 2012
I agree - my thoughts and opinions are my own. It's impossible for me to know what others are thinking without asking (or posting a note and seeing what happens).
I also can't answer the survey except for "Don't Know".
People voting for caps would lead me to belive that they are missing the point (or at least my point).
The disrepectful choice is just that - disrespectful to the people who have worked hard to maintain our lifestyle. Not everyone deserves a raise or bonus, but if the money is there, the people who worked hard and exceed the expectations of their superiors do.
USA1
11:41 am on Monday, December 17, 2012
We are as a country having tough times, this was not done before why would we consider starting this now for employees in Ridgewood, they are not leaving, they do not need to be enticed to stay. It is disgraceful and sets a bad precedent going forward especially during such hard times.
kat
2:21 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
no, no and no
Ridgewood Mom
2:18 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
Could we please add a choice to the poll:
"No. Raises may be appropriate, but should not be based upon so-called 'merit.'"
kat
2:47 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
Seriously, who is getting raises!
barbara
5:15 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
They already have their raises since the rate of pay in the public sector (especially in Ridgewood) are much higher than the same job performed in the private sector. Make it a level playing field between public and private rate of pay for the same work and then talk about so called merit increases.
J.D. Luke
11:49 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Historically, public sector jobs were low-paid, but the difference was made up by job security, benefits and retirement packages. There was nothing wrong with that.
maureen
5:10 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Ditto the no , no & no !
dara brown
8:22 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Its a choice to work in the public sector vs private sector. In the public sector, you have a job for life, full benefits, and a nice pension while being immune to the economic realities (that those in the private sector suffer such as layoffs, salary & benefit reductions). In return for these 'guarantees', you make a bit less than those in the private sector, where you might make more money, but your company could go out of business, and you could lose your pension. As a taxpayer, I am not in favor of 'incentives' unless it is coupled with a stable property tax rate.