Friday, February 13, 2015

MN Cabinet Salary Issue

Thoughts regarding the pay raise disagreement?

MPR Dayton: Salary Hikes Important

MinnPost Carlson on Salary Tussle

MPR Dayton DFLer Blowup


13 comments:

jerrye92002 said...

Bakk vs. Dayton. Get the popcorn! Republicans in the House have already passed a bill denying the raises. What will the DFL Senate (who granted Dayton the authority in the first place) do with this political embarrassment?

John said...

Kenyon Opinion Piece

Star Tribune Pay Raise Compromise

jerrye92002 said...

No wonder people are outraged by this. In the private sector, you usually have to have some spectacular job performance to get that kind of bump. Are these folks really any good at their jobs?

John said...

On the other hand these folks are paid less than many equivalent managers in the private sector.

I often wonder what the upper Managers in my company do for their extravagant compensation.

Like the owl and how many licks to get to the center of tootsie pop... "The world may never know."

John said...

That triggered a thought. I wonder if my CEO has to go to the company's stock holders every time he wants to give his direct reports a raise?

jerrye92002 said...

If he wants to give one of them a 50% raise, he darn well better at least talk to the BOD. And these staff are usually qualified in some fashion, not political appointees.

jerrye92002 said...

"I often wonder what the upper Managers in my company do for their extravagant compensation."

I do know that I long ago decided I wouldn't want the job regardless of pay. I think it's probably worse than being a teacher, with the pressure, the hours, the politics and people problems.

John said...

I made the same decision, however it was because my ethics were worth more than they pay.

Since these State employees are professionals managers with a great deal of authority and responsibility, what do you think their yearly compensation should be?

jerrye92002 said...

"what do you think their yearly compensation should be?"

That seems a rather simple question to me. These folks accepted the job for the pay offered to them. After that, any raises should be strictly tied to performance. Better yet, give them base pay plus a small percentage of the amount they come in UNDER budget for the year.

John said...

Based on your logic we should reduce their income to $40,000 / year... I am sure we could find someone to take the position.

I think that was Dayton's point. He could not attract the best candidates with the current pay scale.

jerrye92002 said...

What "attract"? He appoints them and they say yes or no. Do you have any evidence that people more qualified turned down the job because it only paid 100 grand? Now if you want to argue that these folks are the bottom of the barrel and Dayton might have done better, feel free.

John said...

Apparently he thinks he could have done better if the salary was better.

That is kind of slap in the face to his current employees... :)

jerrye92002 said...

I doubt there is any evidence of that. I'm reminded of when the school board told me they had to raise salaries because they were "losing all our good teachers." I asked: 1) how many teachers left the district last year? 2) how many of those left for salary reasons, to go to another school (not another line of work)? and 3) how do you know they were good teachers?

The answer is the same to all three: we don't know. There is no evaluation process (obviously), and there is no exit interview as in most businesses, and since being a good teacher doesn't affect your salary, the point is moot, isn't it?