Last night the Burnsville City Council met to discuss a lengthy agenda which included several items of high importance which really probably should have been placed on the Regular Agenda instead of the Consent Agenda but one really stuck out: “Consider Resolution Adopting 2011 Pay Plan and Benefits for Non-Union Employees”
From the background information available on item 4. D. (p. 12):
Wages: Due to budget challenges and the difficult economic times the past two years the City eliminated the mid-year increase for non-union employees in 2009 and provided no pay increase in 2010. Non-Union employees were also impacted most directly by staffing reductions in 2009. The proposed increase would help maintain equity between union and non-union employees.
The motion was approved uncontested but Charlie did mention that while he was voting for it this year because non-union staff had not received a raise in about 1.5 years, unless the current economic situation improves they should not count on him voting for another increase in the next year.
Plenty within the community, living in Burnsville or not, may have an opinion on public workers receiving a pay increase when most of the public have taken pay cuts or outright lost their jobs. Do you believe that a 2% increase was the right thing for the Burnsville City Council to approve following the tax increase they approved two weeks ago which proved they are unable to properly control spending within the city? Whatever you think about the Burnsville City Council’s decision to provide pay raises to staff in a time when most in the private sector are either out of work or haven’t received a pay increase in years or anything else that occurred at the meeting which concerns you (like Dan Kealey’s failure to recuse himself during a discussion a Rixmann property decision), go ahead and share whatever it is you have on your mind.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:26 am
Most companies are implementing pay raises this year after a year or two of stagnation. The average increase is falling into the 2-3 percent range, so I don’t think this is anything other than the right thing to do to maintain a good workforce.
With the majority of taxpayers likely seeing a small bump in their own pay, it is only right that a little of that go to their neighbors who get paid by the city.
I suspect the unemployed readers and people who work for companies without a pay increase in 2011 will be prone to flame me on this post, but you are in the minority.
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:34 am
Is there really any reason to expect anything different in Burnsville? The last time I got a raise was 3 years ago and then 2 months later the company was sold off and I was looking for work. At that point in time I thought it was odd anyone was getting raises.
If they really are concerned with pay equity between union and non-union rates, they should be going back to the union and asking for concessions. They shouldn’t be bumping up non-union pay simply because the contract the negotiated with the union doesn’t scale with the economy.
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:02 am
As a Burnsville resident, I can honestly say that I have no problem with the City Council voting to increase staff wages next year. There have been huge cutbacks in staff at the City over the last several years, and the remaining public employees are taking on increased responsibilities to compensate for the fewer staff.
I am not a City employee but I am aware of the good workers we have at Burnsville. Like any business, if you want good people to stay, be committed, and not look for work elsewhere, you must be willing to compensate them accordingly. I am optimistic that the economy will improve in 2011. Therefore, I don’t want our staff to be looking elsewhere to work. If this gets them up to competitive levels of salary, I say pay them.
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:11 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Pamela Svec Punt. Pamela Svec Punt said: RT @TimothyBurke: It's just money. RT @SouthMetroNews: Burnsville Council Votes to Give Staff 2% Raise?! http://ow.ly/3sUjm [...]
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:14 am
lefty,
Corporate profits are up and thus they can afford to retain employees by providing promotions and pay increases. Following an approved tax increase on the residents of the City of Burnsville, it’s clear that the public sector, at least in Burnsville, cannot afford a 2% pay increase for anyone.
If the city was able to hold steady at a 0% increase then I’d be all for a 2% increase for workers regardless of when they received their last pay increase.
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:25 am
While I think perhaps they should have a raise, 2% may be too high. My company had its 4th best year ever and our raises are only between 2 & 3%. If the PAC wasn’t bleeding our city dry, I would support a 2% raise.
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:43 am
Many companies have passed out paycuts or skipped raises. That has alaready been mentioned here. What hasn’t been addressed is how much are these employees being paid, and how does their paya compare to similar work in the private sector? I have the impression that the pay and benefit cuts that many of us have suffered over the last few years have not been mirrored in most government jobs, from local through federal.
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:46 am
I understand your position about raising taxes plus raising pay not sitting well, and your concerns about the money management of the city leaders are well documented. I am just trying to separate the two.
My position is simply that corporations are starting to open up the coffers now more than in the past few years. The majority of the residents of the city will see higher pay in 2011. I am comfortable with the reality that my increased taxes are supported by my pay raise (speaking generally since I don’t live in B”ville) and that any good business should give increases to it’s employees in line with what they need to do to compete for a solid workforce.
I won’t begin to argue the words “good business” as I don’t really have an angle as to how they do their job outside of the posts and comments on this site. I just think that my neighbors who work for the government should be able to buy new things as much as I can though I am not employed by the government.
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:53 am
Ah see that’s where you’re wrong. Those in the public sector CHOSE to be there knowing full well that they are at the mercy of the taxpayers. They should be doing it so that they can serve the public, not make a lot of money.
The fact that the politicians sitting on the Burnsville City Council feel the need to treat their staff as if they were in the private sector is the wrong decision and they should be removed from office in the next election cycle for it.
December 22nd, 2010 at 10:33 am
I have a little bit of trouble with the correlation between the corporate world and what the City is doing.
There are very few corporations that, even in the BEST of times, give a raise to its entire workforce across the board. In the “real world” companies create a bonus/merit increase pool based on what the company can afford. The actual raises and bonuses are then tied to performance and documented value/meeting of specific objectives. Weight is also given to skill set — those employees that would be difficult and costly to replace. The reality is, in the corporate world, it costs in excess of $200,000 to recruit, train, and place a skilled professional.
I’m sure there are a handful of highly specialized non-union City employees that fall into that boat. But in the corporate world, the average employee gets a $25 Target gift card at Christmas and a “thanks for your service” note unless the company is profitable.
Think about this: The worst performing, least skilled employees of the City are going to get a 2% raise. In the “corporate world”, when a company is in the red and failing to meet its basic business objectives (like the City is), those employees would be LAID OFF, not given a raise.
Government employees wonder where the public at large gets the impression that they make more money for doing less than those in the private sector. A 2% across-the-board raise is one indicator.
I wouldn’t fault the City, even as it is squeezing the taxpayers to make up for its failure to meet its obligations, for giving raises. But as with they do with so many decisions, they’ve taken the least intelligent and responsible way of doing it, highlighting again how out of touch they are with the world outside City Hall.
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:12 am
I am disappointed once again that our mayor & city counsel are not acting on the behalf of the community but off of their own agenda. I haven’t seen a raise since 2004 and while I am gratefull to have a job it is hard for me to accept the city giving raises when they had them 2 years ago little lone across the board to everyone. I was one of the “lucky ones” to have to pay for the new Bville parkway this fall, which was difficult on an already tight budget. What more could this dumb group propose next? I agree with Bill’s previously post and we really need to vote the entire group out – they have been in office far too long, and I for one I’m tired of the stupid decision’s made when the it is the community that has to pay for it. Vote the mayor out should be the next compaign slogan for someone!
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:21 am
Those in the public sector chose to be there, but so did those of us in the private sector as well. In exchange for pay cuts and layoffs when times are bad, you get heftier pay raises and more perks and benefits when times are good. Whereas in the public sector, it’s more steady and there’s less boom and bust. Right now, of course, we’re in a bust, which is coloring perceptions.
I agree with Crichton’s reasoning regarding both the current increase and likely not approving one in the future.
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:24 am
Tim, I worked in the public sector for several years. There was always boom and bust as it was up to Pawlenty and his cabinet to decide our pay increases.
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:39 am
I reject the notion that city employees choose to work in a low paying job because they choose to support the public. Show me one of those that would not take a similar responsibility in the private sector for more money and the theoretical chance for yearly increases.
With the recent economy, a job is a job. Employers (public or private) who are hiring are competing for the best employees. Employees should feel like solid performance will be rewarded with more pay eventually, and we all need to be motivated by something. Loyalty to any company will last often right up to the day the employee gets laid off, which clearly happens with both sectors.
Now, if the city is going to just give Sally who makes 10 dollars an hour 20 cents and Cindy who makes 20 40 cents, that is wrong. The increases should be ferreted out by performance so that the overall cost of the raise is 20%. If one guy gets 4% and another guy gets 0% and it averages 2%, fair deal. Increases for merit’s sake are worthless.
Again, have all the fun you can with whether these people can manage the city properly, but I don’t know if many city workers are going to line up and say they wouldn’t appreciate a raise for the good of the city.
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:05 pm
“… appreciate a raise for the good of the city”?
Lefty – I think you would be a great union steward.
December 22nd, 2010 at 1:08 pm
As a State employee, I did not receive a cost of living increase in the last two years. We are getting step increases this year, if we are not at the top of our payscales, which I am. We’ve been basically told the next two years will be more of the same.
So I see this and think, hmm, wonder if Burnsville has any jobs I could do? In my area of about 40 employees, I know of at least 6 who have found new jobs recently. Not getting pay raises means good people leaving. I don’t know if I can go another two years without a pay raise, it isn’t like the rest of my bills have been held constant. Burnsville has done a smart thing here. It will help with retention of employees and employee satisfaction.
Say what you will about government employment, but those of us with skills and higher education tend to make less than our private employer counterparts. Yes, people in lower jobs, like food service and secretaries make more than they would in the private sector, but I make considerably less than I would in the private sector. What keeps me here is a passion for government and helping people. But that passion stops when I stop being able to pay my bills.
December 22nd, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Historically, employment in the public sector has required a trade in employee expectations. Starting wage and potential wage has always been lower than equivalent positions in the private sector. In exchange for the lower wages public employees typically receive better benefits than what is available in the public sector for the equivalent job. From hours of work, to health insurance, to more flexible working conditions to job security.
Recently (say since the late 1990′s) job security is one of the past benefits of government work that essentially don’t exist anymore, but many other benefits still exist.
Lefty would not make a good union steward as he is promoting the improvement of the non-union worker. When typically, unions prefer the non-union worker to look longing toward the benefits of the union-worker providing incentive for unionization.
December 22nd, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Mikeh is correct. Unions are stupid.
Good employees don’t need to be protected by expensive unions and bad employees deserve to be fired and not protected by expensive unions.
Unions had their day, but that day has passed.
December 22nd, 2010 at 3:55 pm
The days of government workers being underpaid to the private sector have past. Today, they’re likely to be paid more.
December 22nd, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Group,
Last nights decision on a 2% pay increase for non-union staff was hard for me as a fiscal conservative who feels BOTH union and non-union employees should have had a pay freeze starting in 2008. We attempted it and the only ones we could freeze pay were non-union because our repeated requests for the union to “re-open” the contracts were rejected. The contracts go in 2 year segments and we had to either wait until the contract was up, or cut some police and fire. Not a wise option for many reasons, safety in this City being the foremost.
Tim made a good point on public pay not fluctuating with as much disparity from good to bad years as private sector pay. This is true here in the city. Even when the money flowed from every direction years ago, wage increases were held to common sense fiscal limitations and not allowed to be as large as private sector might be. When times are tight, they go down, as they did the last couple years to zero, and they can go away for some just as they do in the private sector, when we let go 20 employees a year ago.
all things considered I made a judgement call as Charlie did to support the non-union staff 2% raise. It may very well be the only one for another 2 years as things are not improving that fast. I didn’t speak on this as Charlie said exactly what I was going to say, and I didn’t see a need to be redundant.
December 22nd, 2010 at 6:35 pm
To address the concerns that Bill brought up on the perceived conflict with Rixmann LivInn Suites sign application, THERE IS NO CONFLICT.
I was concerned about the name affiliation so I consulted the City Attorney and he said clearly that these are different companies and different management. I have nothing to do with LivInn suites or the owners of that company, therefore i didn’t want to recuse from the discussion just because the same family names.
Had my employer, the owner of Pawn America, had any ownership interest at all in LivInn Suites, I would have recused myself without any hesitation.
I am glad Bill noted this so the air could be cleared. It is easy to assume with the names are the same. I would have as well.
December 22nd, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Dan Kealey,
Just to clarify … Are you saying Pawn America and LivInn Suites are NOT both Brad Rixmann-owned businesses?
From the Pioneer Press on September 3, 2006:
Brad Rixmann, Pawn America owner and founder, was named chief executive officer of LivINN Suites, a Burnsville-based company that invests in and manages hotels and apartment communities of at least 100 units.
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Dan, either we have to replace our City Attorney or he received incomplete information concerning ownership of the LivInn Hotel. Tax records indicate that Rixmann-Burnsville LLC is the owner. Rixmann-Burnsville LLC/ Rixmann Amcon LLC/ Pawn America Headquarters all have the the same address of 181 River Ridge Circle S, Burnsville, MN.In your above comment you implied that Brad Rixmann has NO financial ties with LivInn. When in doubt you should have recused yourself from the signage vote. I don’t care what the City Attorney told you. Common sense dictated a recusal on your part. Also you never responded to my inquiry as to whether or not you recused yourself from the selection of Brad Rixmann to the PAC Commission.
December 23rd, 2010 at 12:08 am
There are three City employees each with annual salaries exceeding $100,000. Did any of them provide any meaningful input in the decision to build the PAC or did they stand by so the Mayor could do her thing? The projected operating statement did not include about a third of the operating cost. The numbers should have been summarized in a meaningfull way so everyone could have seen this trainwreck before it was approved. If the City Manager and Deputies would have let a trainwreck like the PAC happen in the corporate world, they would have been fired! Sorry, not pay increases for these folks.
December 23rd, 2010 at 8:57 am
Cliff hit the nail on the head. While some of these people might deserve a raise, the severity of the “miss” that is the BPAC would have resulted in any highly paid executive or project manager suddenly needing to find new work, not getting a raise.
December 23rd, 2010 at 9:34 am
I feel lucky that I work at a company that has consistently given out 2% cost of living raises along with an additional 3% performance raise (depending on your yearly review). Last year was the only time they’ve frozen wages since I’ve been there, and that was only after exhausting other cost cutting measures (layoffs, eliminating company 401k matching for 2009, etc). Turn over is extremely low in my department (and in the financial services area in general for my company). BTW, I work for a non-profit hospital that’s just resumed hiring. If you’re interested let me know.
December 23rd, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Will,
They office in the same building, but are separate companies. I work for Pawn America MN LLC. It is no different than if they leased space in the same building from a different landlord. Wayne Rixmann who owns LivInn Suites and Birkshire apartments in Burnsville has an office here even though he is not here that much and again, I have no contact or dealings with his company at all.
I sounds like you were looking for a recusal on perception only. As I stated, i was initially concerned and sought the opinion of the City Attorney to make sure. Conflict of Interest is pretty clear form a legal description standpoint, but can be much more subjective in anyone persons point of view.
December 23rd, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Cliff,
Yes Craig, Tom and Tammy all make over 100K.
They serve at the pleasure of the council and were told by the 3 that voted for the PAC to execute the plans to build it and research a management company.
They do not have the power or authority to contradict the majority direction of the Council. Don’t blame the soldiers for what the leadership told them to go and do.
P.S. Craig has not requested, in fact insisted that he receive no increase in pay for the last 2 years of reviews. I would have done the same in his shoes.
December 23rd, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Will,
To your question on recusing myself from the vote to appoint the BPAC Commission, relative to Brad Rixmann, …Council process was for each of us to vote for a list of 9 choices and then we combined all the lists votes.
Brad was in before I even was asked to verbalize my ranking list, thus abstaining from him.
After he was already in by a large margin by the other Council members lists, I did comment about a couple of the appointees, Brad was one of them, noting that I agreed with the other council members positive comments about his strengths. He already has been one of the strongest assets to the Commission and could very well be the one who saves tax payers more tax dollars than anyone else on the commission with his ideas for revenue generation for the facility.
December 23rd, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Will,
BTW, with no personal gain for Brad or myself in making an appointment to a voluntary board, I am not sure I even understand the logic in your question of recusing myself?
Can you explain where a conflict might exist when appointing someone to a volunteer position which brings no advantage or leverage at all to any personal or business benefit, reward or gain, other than a THANK YOU from the community?
December 26th, 2010 at 12:57 am
I’m amused by the apparent disconnect on whether public sector workers are under or over paid. I read in many posts that public sector workers should expect lower pay in return for better benefits. I read in other posts that public sector workers are over paid relative to the private sector. Which is it?
It often feels as though many people just think governement employees should be paid less than the private sector just because they work for the government. Afterwords they complain about the competency of many of those same workers, being paid below market rate, and then wonder why they don’t get competent or quality help. See the disconnect?
Is the timing of this 2% raise great? No, especially in light of the tax increase passed by the council. On the flip side, one has to place this in the larger complex of pay for all classifications in the city and maintaining some equality across the group. Given that this group recieved zero for 1.5 years while the other bargaining groups did get a raise, this is a move to keep equality between all the groups in the employ of the city.
December 26th, 2010 at 8:58 am
Jason,
Those at the top of the Burnsville Staff (Ebeling, Omdal, and Hansen) make way over what’s competitive for their positions and regardless of Mr. Ebeling’s suggestions that he not receive pay raises, he has been overpaid for his performance especially as of late.
I don’t know what the rest of their staff members make but being that they pay so very well at the top I have a feeling that the majority of their staff aren’t hurting as far as wages go.
As far as keeping equality, we’ve already covered that. There is absolutely and positively no reason why any white collar worker should be unionized in 2010 (and very little reason why the majority of blue collar workers should be) and thus equality across all groups is ridiculous reasoning IMO.
December 26th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Dan, thank you for responding to all of my comments. It is appreciated. However I am concerned about the lack of response regarding LL’s mention of the Pioneer Press article dated Sept 3, 2006 stating that Brad Rixmann was made CEO of LivInn Suites. Refer to page 2 of this link:
http://www.allbusiness.com/education-training/education-systems-institutions/14301258-1.html
Dan, maybe you and the city attorney should do some research BEFORE any comments are made.
Here is an interesting letter from the State of Minnesota concerning Wayne Rixmann being a Dead Beat employer. Refer to this link:
http://www.craigsbrowser.com/xml-iphone-v13/post.php?post=http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/hnp/vnn/2080010594.html
December 26th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
As far as I was aware Brad wasn’t involved with LivInn in 2010, regardless of his status in 2006, but perhaps I’m wrong. If I’m not and Brad isn’t directly involved in the day to day operations in 2010, Wayne Rixmann’s poor management of his business does not matter one iota in this discussion.
December 27th, 2010 at 10:09 am
One way to control subordinates is to pay them way more than they are worth. This way they are less likely to make waves. If their salaries come from taxpayers, who the heck cares? My experience has shown overpaid folks have a real problem thinking and acting independently. Independent thinking and independent behavior is never rewarded by absolute monarchs like Kautz.
December 28th, 2010 at 2:47 am
Pay equality over the workforce is an issue regardless of union status. My previous non-union employer dealt with this issue with periodic pay studies, classifications, and overall adjustments to keep things in line for the various professions and across the company as a whole. Burnsville, as does my present employer, deals across both union and non-union (full disclosure: I am unfortunately a union member so I at least get a voice in the mandatory union in my work classification). The issue for Burnsville is they treated some workgroups one way, and others a different way (by way of contracts or lack thereof). Treating their workgroups differently will come back to bite them in the end. I’m not defending the union one way or the other – just pointing out that as the one group is treated, the others will expect the same. Across the multiple bargaining and non-bargaining groups at my present employer that is the game, like it or not.
As a whole though, I’d agree that given the cities performance, the raise in not warranted from a performance end.
December 28th, 2010 at 9:54 am
This whole notion of “pay equality” across workforce groups sounds like a bunch of mamby pamby nonsense to avoid having the brains and balls to operate in a sensible manner.
In the real world, salaries and benefits are slotted based on competitive analysis of similar functions across the marketplace. It’s insane to base a City office administrator’s raise on what the snow plow maintenance technicians got.
I go back to my original comment — this whole idea of a universal 2% pay increase is thoughtless, has no bearing whatsoever on job satisfaction/loyalty, and is the least thoughtful way of addressing compensation issues in the City. I still contend that it demonstrates a lack of savvy and broad-based business acumen out of our City Council.
December 30th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Will,
I asked Brad about this and the published appointment in 2006 of him to CEO of LivInn was a short term appointment due to health issues at the time with Wayne Rixmann. A common and appropriate step in under these circumstances.
December 30th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Dan Kealey,
So all of the Rixmann-family-owned companies have the same headquarters and one family member or another manages each?
Any way I look at it, I see a clear conflict for Dan Kealey. You’re saying that LivInn Suites is the company your boss’ FATHER owns; the one his son, YOUR BOSS, pinch hits as CEO when circumstances dictate, and it’s NOT a conflict in your eyes?
Put another way, if your BOSS — the man who pays you so you can put bread on your table — has a nuclear family member who will benefit one way or another from decisions big and small you make on the Burnsville City Council, how can you not recuse yourself? You were “concerned about the name affiliation” but it’s more than just a “name affiliation.” A conflict, or even the appearance of a conflict, should have been avoided.
I don’t think anyone on the Burnsville City Council named Dan understands this. A big old red flag is when your gut told you to ask the City Attorney about whether you should recuse yourself due to the perception of a conflict.
December 31st, 2010 at 4:44 pm
LL Reader, I concur. “A conflict, or even the appearance of a conflict, should have been avoided.”
January 3rd, 2011 at 9:50 am
LL Reader and Will,
Once and for all, Brad has nothing to do with LivInn suites. He spends 100% of his time on his own companies. In 2006 he was named only as a precaution and that appointment was terminated shortly after health concerns no longer existed, which was relatively fast.
Conflict of Interest is something I take very seriously, as I do the responsibility of representing tax payers on Council.
If you would like to meet in person to discuss this and any other issues you are concerned about, please let me know. I would prefer to address your concerns in person, rather than on a blog.
January 11th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
In response to Dan Kealey #28: Even though these people are subordinated to the City Council they are not excused from providing meaningful input in terms of personal notes or personal conversations with Council Members or the Mayor. These people are highly paid professionals and need to behave like hightly paid professionals. Is the environment so bad with the ABSOLUTE MONARCH that there is no upward communication or did our professional employees try and fail?