1、2022年4月16日星期六美世的总体薪酬研究美世的总体薪酬研究AgendanKey Program ObjectivesnMarket Analysis nCompetitive Assessment of Pay PracticesnReview of Pay Plan Design nJob Grading ProcessnOther Pay Programs and Practices Reviewed by MercernCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsnObservations and RecommendationsKey Program Obje
2、ctivesnAscertain the competitiveness of Metros salaries and benefits relative to defined marketsnReview the current pay program design and methodology relative to best practicesnReview the existing pay programs of other affiliated agencies within the Metro system for soundness and effectiveness nRec
3、ommend changes, where appropriate, to improve the competitiveness and soundness of the compensation program components relative to best practicesnAssist in communicating and presenting the results to ensure understanding throughout MetroMarket AnalysisMethodologynA series of jobs were market priced
4、covering various areas of the government 167 jobs were reviewed relative to salary and pay plan competitivenessoData was gathered from published survey sources for 151 jobsoA custom survey was conducted in which included data on 40 jobs (24 of these 40 jobs also incorporated published survey data) 3
5、9 jobs, representing a subset of the 167, were used to assess the competitiveness of Metros total compensation package covering salaries and benefits nTwo methods of surveying were used to compile salary information:Published survey data from Mercers compensation library covering various industriesC
6、ustom survey of benchmark cities comparable to Metro in size and consistent with those benchmark cities used in previous compensation studiesnFor the benefits analysis, plan information was obtained from the benchmark cities; high level information was also obtained from Mercer surveys of general (m
7、ostly private sector) employers in the southern/southeastern USMarket AnalysisGeneral Industry SurveysnThe general industry salary data was compiled from multiple survey sourcesOver 50 survey sources encompassing a broad spectrum of jobs and industries was used to ensure comprehensive coverage 151 j
8、obs were priced, which included jobs from other agencies affiliated with MetroAll of the market data has been time adjusted to so that it is current as of January 1, 2004In matching the jobs, comparisons were based on job content and requirementsnot on job titleMarket AnalysisCustom Government Surve
9、ynThe custom survey reflects salary data from 17 city/county governments and focuses on jobs that are government-specific oAtlanta, Georgia*oCharlotte, North Carolina*oCincinnati, Ohio*oColumbus, Ohio*oFulton County, Georgia*oHamilton County, Ohio* *oIndianapolis, IndianaoJacksonville, FloridaoKansa
10、s City, Missouri*Benefit data was obtained from 10 of these municipalities *Hamilton County served as a substitute for Tampa who did not respond oLouisville, Kentucky*oMecklenburg County, North CarolinaoMemphis, TennesseeoOklahoma City, Oklahoma*oRichmond, Virginia*oSan Antonio, Texas*oShelby County
11、, TennesseeoSt. Louis, MissourinWith respect to actual salaries paid*, Metros pay practices are competitive with the marketnOn average, Metro is paying 101% of market for comparable jobsnMarket data is reflective of salaries paid at the median (50th percentile) of the market nThe vast majority of jo
12、bs (95%) are being paid within +/- 20% of the market median, which suggests consistency and fairness in how employees are being paid Competitive Assessment of Pay PracticesActual Salaries Paid*Note that actual salaries reflect the average full-time salaries paid to Metro employees in the job and ass
13、igned to the same job code.100% of Market MedianLower Paying Organizations120%Metro 101% of market medianMarket MedianCompetitive Assessment of Pay PracticesDefinition of MediannA targeted position at the 50th percentile reflects the central tendency of the distributionBy definition, the median is t
14、he middle of the distributionas many organizations pay below the median as those that pay above itIt is a statistical definition for an average and is the strongest measure to use since it is not influenced by outliers in the datanThe following example illustrates how a median value is obtained from
15、 a survey where multiple responses are providedOrganizationAverage Reported SalaryCity A$26,000City B$33,800City C$34,200City D$34,700City E$34,900City F$35,300City G$35,500Low OutlierMEDIAN (middle value)The median is not affected by unusually high or low values which could otherwise skew the resul
16、ts. In this example, the simple average would be $33,486.Competitive Assessment of Pay PracticesExample Market PricingCompetitive Assessment of Pay PracticesActual Salaries PaidCompetitive Assessment of Pay PracticesPay PlansnFollowing the 2001 study, “control points” were designated within each of
17、the pay plans to serve as market references for establishing Metros external competitivenessThe step that lies near the middle of the each range serves as the control pointThese control points are intended to reflect the pay of employees who have been in their jobs for several years and are fully fu
18、nctional in performing all aspects of the work nThe competitiveness of Metros current pay plans were assessed by comparing the grade control point for each job to the jobs market median value as determined from the surveysnIn aggregate, the overall competitiveness of Metros pay plans is 99% of marke
19、t median nConformity across the pay plans and among the benchmark jobs is excellentAll of the pay plans are very competitive with market median practices 95% of the grade control points for the benchmarks were found to be within +/- 20% of their median market rates, which suggests that the vast majo
20、rity of the benchmarks are properly gradedThis also reflects positively on the work that was done and the actions that were taken as a result of the 2001 study Competitive Assessment of Pay PracticesPay PlansReview of Pay Plan Design nAs part of the 2001 study, the pay plans were reviewed for design
21、 soundness and relative to best practices. Revisions were implemented to address certain weaknessesnOur review of the design characteristics of the current pay plans suggest that they not be changed The current architecture adheres to acceptable standards and supports Metros philosophyThe mathematic
22、al characteristics conform to sound principles of compensation designnAlthough Metro has a step system, step progressions are based on performance which is consistent with Metros pay philosophyThe step system allows for accelerated movement through the ranges in the first few years and slower moveme
23、nt in the later yearsTwo performance steps were created in 2001 for the SR and PS pay plans to create opportunities for employees to earn lump sum performance bonusesJob Grading ProcessnThe results of the market analysis will serve as the framework for assessing the appropriateness of how the jobs a
24、re currently gradedThose benchmark jobs whose grade control points are significantly below or above their market median rates should be considered for possible grade reassignment to establish greater alignment with the marketFor the non-benchmarks, comparisons should be made to those benchmarks that
25、 may move to a different grade so that internal equity relationships and career ladders are preservedOther Pay Programs and Practices Reviewed by MercernAs part of this study, Mercer reviewed the pay programs of several affiliated Metro agencies and found them to be operating in accordance with acce
26、ptable principals and compatible to Metros pay practices MDHAHospitalHealth DepartmentNCACMAC Election Commission nComments have also been provided on other pay studies conducted since 2001 relative to keeping them maintained and updating them at specified intervals. It should be noted that these pa
27、y studies followed the same methodology as this study with recommendations based on best practices Metro Department HeadsCouncil Members and Elected Officials District Attorneys Office Board of Education MembersCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsMethodologynBenefit plan information was obtained for 1
28、0 city/county governments for benefit plans applicable to General, Police and Fire employeesInformation was obtained for benefit plans applicable to General, Police and Fire employees, with differences between Union and Non-Union benefits reflected as appropriatenInformation was obtained for only th
29、ose plans that are currently offered to newly-hired employees; “grandfathered” plans were not surveyed nWhere multiple plan options are offered by an organization, as in the Medical and Dental areas, one option (generally the option with the highest participation) was valued for that organization nA
30、 set of 39 jobs (“Benchmark Profiles”) was chosen to assess the competitiveness of Metros benefits34 General jobs2 Police jobs3 Fire jobsnBenefit plans provided by Metro and by the 10 peer organizations were valued on a job-by-job basis usingA common set of demographic profiles for General and a com
31、mon set for Police and FireA common set of actuarial assumptions and methodsCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsMethodology nThe focus of the value calculation is on plan design; the impact of demographic and geographic differentials, claims experience, funding methods and negotiating power that can a
32、ffect the cost of benefit plans are removedThe use of common demographic profiles, assumptions and methods results in an “apples-to-apples” comparison of plan values across organizations nFor the purposes of this comparison, “value” is determined from the employees perspective and is defined as the
33、market replacement value of the employer-provided benefitsnMarket replacement value is the estimated amount of pretax salary that an employee would need in order to replace the employer-provided benefits in the open marketnThe value of a benefit to the employee is often very different from the cost
34、of that benefit to the employerFor example, an individually-purchased medical insurance policy that is identical to the employer-provided plan will often cost moreTwo organizations that have identical benefit plan provisions will have the same value attributed to their plans irrespective of the cost
35、s of the plans to the organizations Because the values do not reflect Metros actual cost to provide benefits, the emphasis is on the value of Metros benefits relative to those of the peer organizationsCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsTotal Benefits Value nTotal Benefits value is the sum of the valu
36、es of Retirement/Savings, Health/Group and Time Loss benefitsnBenefits were valued on a job-by-job basis using Metros salary for each job and the demographic profile of incumbents in all jobs combined, calculated separately for General Employees vs. Police and Fire nJob-specific values were rolled u
37、p into a “workforce average” value, weighted by the number of incumbents in each job, for General vs. Police vs. FirenValues within the range of 95% to 105% of median should be interpreted as essentially at medianCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsWorkforce Average by Benefit CategoryRank756117875876
38、5Competitive Assessment of BenefitsRetirement/SavingsnRetirement/Savings is the sum of the values of Defined Benefit, Defined Contribution, Social Security and Post-retirement MedicalnEach employers retirement program design is uniqueWhen considering the value of any employers retirement program, it
39、 is important to consider the Retirement/Savings value as a whole rather than focus on the individual components of the valueFor example, one employer may use a DB plan as its primary retirement income vehicle while another may use a DC plan, but the total value of each employers Retirement/Savings
40、package could be the same; likewise, whether or not an employer contributes to Social Security will affect the value of the total packagenIncome benefits (DB, DC, Social Security)reasons for rankingMetro does not require employee contributions to the DB plan, while several peers doMetro contributes
41、toward Social Security; 4 peers do not for General, 5 do not for Police and 7 do not for FireMetros COLA is the lowest of 6 with COLA for General, and 8 for Police and Fire; 2 do not provide COLAsMetros benefit accrual rates are low, and the compensation averaging period is the longest6 peers offer
42、unreduced retirement benefits unrelated to age after attaining a certain service level (20-30 years); the valuation method assumes additional years of benefit when plans allow unreduced early retirementCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsRetirement/SavingsnRetiree Medical BenefitsPlan for General empl
43、oyees ranks 8th out of 11, with a benefit value of 86% of peer group medianPlan for Police and Fire ranks 9th out of 11, with a benefit value of 75% of peer group medianAs is typical in retiree medical programs, there are significant variations by peer group in the benefits provided, and thus in the
44、 reasons for the results, but the following are major factors:oSome peers have richer benefits and/or lower contributions than Metroo2 peers reimburse some or all of Medicare Part B premiums for General; three do for Police and Fire; Metro does not reimburse for Part B premiumso8 peers coordinate wi
45、th Medicare to pay more for retirees than what the plan would pay for active employees, with three paying to meet 100% of expenses; Metro uses a “carve-out” approach that ensures parity with the benefits of active employeeso4 peers have service-based contributions for General employees and three do
46、for Police and Fire, resulting in higher contributions for shorter lengths of service, and vice-versaCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsWorkforce Average for Health and Group BenefitsRank563862765Competitive Assessment of BenefitsMedical PlanActivesnMetros CIGNA HMO plan was valuednMetros plan for Ge
47、neral Employees ranks 5th out of 11 peers, with a benefit value of 101% of market mediannMetros plan for Police Employees ranks 8th out of 11 peers, with a benefit value of 94% of market mediannMetros plan for Fire Employees ranks 7th out of 11 peers, with a benefit value of 95% of market median (tw
48、o peers had slightly different plans for Police vs. Fire)nThe plan has low employee cost-sharing (deductibles, co-pays, etc.) when services are received, relative to the peersnMetros employee contributions are higher than most peersCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsDental PlannFor all employee group
49、s, Metros plan ranks 6th out of 11 peers, with a value of 87% of the market mediann3 peers charge employees 100% of the premium, so the value reflects only the tax savings on the employee-paid premiumn2 peers have lesser coverage and/or higher employee contributionsn5 peers have somewhat richer bene
50、fits and lower employee contributionsCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsLife InsurancenMetros benefit for General Employees ranks 3rd of 11, with a value 140% of market median for the workforce averagenMetros benefit for Police ranks 2nd and 5th for Fire with values of 116% and 100% of market median
