View Single Post
  #136  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2012, 7:48 PM
CaptainKirk CaptainKirk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,449
Part of Dreschel's piece. http://www.thespec.com/news/local/ar...y-policy-flaws

Quote:
According to Helen Hale Tomasik, executive director of human resources, the city’s practice is to base vacation payouts on the salary employees are being paid at the time of their payout request.

Since Chapman’s request was apparently made after she received her $30,000 raise in November or December last year, that means the payout was based on her increased salary of $120,000.

In other words, it was not proportional or pro-rated to the $90,000 she’d been paid throughout most of that year.

That’s an outrageously sweet arrangement, not likely to be found in most corporations and certainly not in many private sector organizations.

What the heck, though. It’s only taxpayers’ money, right?

Bratina said he’d approved the payout because Chapman had to cancel her vacation plans in late 2011 to deal with media coverage of her raise.

According to city policy, non-unionized employees like Chapman can receive payouts for unused vacation time if approved by their managers and only in certain “extenuating circumstances.”

Councillors wanted to know if Bratina’s “workload” argument met that bar.

Tomasik’s answer was no more reassuring than the cosy method used to calculate payouts.

The existing policy specifically cites two examples of extenuating circumstances — long-term illness or absence.
Reply With Quote