Employment

2017 City Salaries; Facilities Management

l3wis May 12, 2017 5Comments

When you start looking at the salaries in this department, you would think they haven’t been adjusted for inflation since 1988. While the city spends millions each year (of our money) on economic development, job growth and affordable housing projects, for some reason they don’t even notice the wage disparity issue in this department.

Out of the 24 custodians that work for the city, 14 of them don’t even make a living wage. The recent Thrive report estimated that a living wage is around $17-20 per hour in Sioux Falls.

The department also has two managers, they make $59,966 & $68,577 per year.

The total salary expenditure for the department (26 employees) is $949,910

If you just count the 24 custodian’s wages it is $821,367 which comes to an average of $16.45 per hour, under a living wage in Sioux Falls.

Should any of this surprise us? I guess people who clean toilets or mop floors are always looked down on as low skill jobs, but over half of these people are actually maintenance employees that require mechanical skills also. Doesn’t someone who works hard 40 hours a week deserve at least a living wage?

I know that the mayor has bragged in the past that they have saved the city even more money in custodial services by contracting a lot of it out. I can tell you that independent cleaning contractors probably pay even less at around $10-12 an hour.

This is where Huether’s corporate culture kicks in. He pays most of his directors well over 6 figures a year, and while their jobs may be more important than cleaning toilets, they still seem to find time to leave before 5 PM to drink beers, or patrol neighborhoods for unsecured wireless so they can download kiddie porn.

Would it really break us if we paid every full-time custodian/maintenance worker with the city AT LEAST $17 an hour? I don’t think so. It seems kind of hypocritical of the current city administration to be throwing millions at local foundations for job growth when we can’t even pay someone a living wage to scrub a toilet.

These are the kind of things that happen when you run a city with a ‘business acumen’. Management lives high on the hog while the minions starve.

Here is the full doc: 2017-Wages

Low wage employer wonders why only druggies apply to work for them

l3wis May 9, 2017 7Comments

Gee, Dana can’t figure out why only drug users want to work for him?

Maybe it as something to do with the wages that are offered?

When you sell yourself as a low-wage state, you bring in low-end employees.

Should city employees be required to live within jurisdiction it works for?

l3wis April 3, 2017 2Comments

I’m finding some interesting arguments on the topic. This one from Washington State that says chartered cities like Sioux Falls could implement the rule, especially for APPOINTED positions (Like City Attorney, Finance director, etc);

Most cities probably do not have residency requirements for their employees, even if they can. Is it a good idea to require residency? Residency helps build a bond between employees and the community they serve. The public may expect city employees face the same restrictions, taxes, policies that they do, and that’s only possible if employees live within the same community where they work. On the other hand, requiring residency limits the size of the pool from which good employees come – probably the strongest argument against requiring residency. The smaller the city, of course, the more that becomes an issue. Ultimately, it is a policy decision, one that needs to be carefully considered.

Finally, note that, if the affected employees of a proposed residency or response time requirement are members of a union, this would be a matter that would need to be bargained.

I also find this argument from Minnesota about elected officials being required to live within the jurisdiction, then why not the employees?

Elected officials must maintain a city residency. Under the Minnesota Constitution, a candidate must live in the city for at least 30 days before a city election in order to serve as a mayor or councilmember. If a mayor or councilmember fails to maintain a city residency, state statute provides that a vacancy in office is created.

There are a ton of reasons for and against, I guess my argument would be ‘customer service’. Wouldn’t a city employee who lives in that community have more pride in the job they do? This would be an interesting debate to take up with the Charter Revision Commission and a possible ordinance change.