Macomb County, Michigan. Classification and Compensation Study. Final Results Presentation February 14, 2018

Transcription

1 Macomb County, Michigan Classification and Compensation Study Final Results Presentation February 14, 2018 Presented by: Ruth Ann Eledge, SPHR, SPHR-SP Vice President and Senior Consultant Copyright 2018 by The Segal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

2 Key Deliverables of the Study Job analysis of seven hundred and fifty (750) job classifications Employee completion of Job Description Questionnaires (JDQs) Compensation survey, including salaries and pay practices Collection of benefits data to determine comparability Market comparisons Development of new classification/compensation plans Development of a job evaluation system to review internal equity Development of updated job descriptions A review and recommendations for the exemption status for all job titles Consolidated pay structures to promote internal and external pay equity Final report documenting project methodology and findings 2

3 Job Analysis A thorough review of 750 job classifications was completed On-site employee briefings for three days Analysis of five hundred and nine (509) Job Questionnaires with three days of targeted follow-up interviews Identification of key characteristics to understand internal relationships of jobs such as supervisory responsibilities, education, experience, technical skills, etc. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) review of exemption from overtime status Consolidation/creation of jobs to reflect work being performed Consolidated clerical titles Development of job families and clarity between levels Title definitions to provide consistency in use of titles Update/development of job descriptions 3

4 Segal Waters Point Factor Job Evaluation Tool Segal Waters Job Evaluation tool (JEM) aligns external and internal pay equity The tool contains the following compensable job factors: Formal Education Job Experience Management/Supervision Human Collaboration Skills Freedom to Act Technical Skill Fiscal Responsibility Working Conditions Provides an objective quantitative approach to align jobs A system that will complement and co-exist with a market approach to structure development 4

5 Market Assessment Benchmark Job Feedback by Departments and Unions Reps. Selection of benchmark jobs: Sufficient number of benchmark jobs to statistically represent all jobs Widespread representing all bargaining units and all departments All levels of the organization represented Reflects the workforce composition Representation of occupational groups and job series Resulted in: 96 job titles representing all County Departments 56% of all incumbents represented 5

6 Peer Employers Representative of Labor Market Review and Feedback from Bargaining Units and Department Directors Peer Employers *Did not participate in the study City of Sterling Heights City of Warren* Clinton Township Genesee County* Livingston County Monroe County Oakland County St. Clair County Washtenaw County Wayne County Included published private sector data to reflect the private sector 6

7 Market Methodology Collected information on: Salary range minimums, midpoints, and maximums Pay Practices Specialty Pay and Pay Differentials Additional Benefit Offerings Paid Time Off Health and Retirement Benefits Peers received a custom survey with job summaries and minimum qualifications describing each benchmark so matches to actual duties and qualifications, rather than title; Segal Waters followed up with peers to ensure appropriate matches. Data collected as of July 1, 2017 Overall, we found Macomb County s pay ranges are market competitive at the pay range minimum and midpoint but lagging at the range maximum. 7

8 Summary of Findings - Individual Benchmark Jobs The County s market position varies by benchmark job Pay range midpoints were used to determine if individual benchmark jobs were at, above, or below market Jobs with midpoints below 95% of market were identified as lagging market Jobs with midpoints above 105% of market were identified as leading market Thirty-two (32) benchmark jobs have ranges that are at market Thirty-three (33) benchmark jobs have range midpoints that are below market Sixteen (16) benchmark jobs have range midpoints that are above market Fifteen (15) jobs did not have sufficient data (three matches) for analysis On the following charts: 8

9 Summary of Findings - Pay Structure While overall pay structures are market competitive, there are areas that are lagging, as shown in red below. 9

10 Summary of Findings - Pay Structure 10

11 Summary of Findings - Pay Structure 11

12 Summary of Findings - Pay Structure 12

13 Summary of Findings - Pay Structure 13

14 Summary of Findings - Pay Structure 14

15 Summary of Findings - Pay Structure 15

16 Summary of Findings - Pay Practices and Benefits In general, the County s pay policies and practices are similar to peer employers. The County s accrual rates and paid time off (vacation, sick leave, holidays) is more generous than peers The County generally pays a higher portion of health benefits costs than peer employers Five of eight respondents have defined contribution plans, with employer contributions ranging from 4% to 8% 16

17 Summary of Pay Structure Recommendations Recommend four pay structures Professional, Technical, and Administrative Executive Part-Time Flat Rate Continue practice of step increases within ranges Implement new market competitive pay structures for all employees Macomb County should continue to review pay structure competitiveness every two years 17

18 Next Steps Segal Waters Presentation and Final Report will be available on the Internet and Intranet Questions regarding the study can be ed to: 2019 Wage Re-opener and negotiations 18

19 Questions 19