Jim, Here's what I said:
"In the case of Michael Christenson, whose current pay rate is somewhere in the range between $65,066-$96,141 and proposed new pay rate is somewhere in the range between $103,500-$114,395, the most likely situation is that he is now at the top of his current range and would move up to the bottom of his proposed new range. Which means he would not get a $30K raise. He would get about a $7K raise. You can argue whether that's merited, but at least make sure you are talking about what's actually being proposed instead of making stuff up or blowing off someone's explanation as "bull" just because you don't like it." I never said anything about people not actually getting a raise. I was pointing out that any raises being given were probably not anywhere near as large as Booker was speculating. Was what I stated earlier that difficult to understand? If not, where is the "bull" really coming from in this discussion? Mark Snyder Windom Park On 3/24/05 6:27 AM, "gemgram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let us begin by saying that neither I nor Booker argued the merits of giving > these people a raise or whether they deserved a raise. The discussion was > about whether they were getting a raise. > > As a former Federal employee I am quite aware of grades and levels with > steps within those levels such as the GS ratings or WG ratings. Even so, > when someone is being given a "raise" in pay grade they are getting a > "RAISE". If they are assuming an entirely different job this might not be > considered a "Raise" but if they are staying in the same position, doing > exactly the same job then, they are getting a raise. > > What I am amazed by is the lack of understanding of how the real world sees > this. If a man or woman stays in the same job in the real world and their > "Income" goes up either $10,000 dollars or $30,000 it is called a pay raise. > To simplify in language most Minneapolis residents speak and commonly > understand - "Pay" is the amount of income for the year. "Raise" means to > increase. Put together these words are commonly understood to mean "Pay > Raise". Was one of these words possibly misunderstood? > > Perhaps, this dialogue adequately illustrates what the real problem is in > Minneapolis "government". It is one of language! Perhaps when someone > becomes a "government" worker such as Jonathon now is, and Mark says he is, > a new culture and language immediately is learned resulting in a paradigm > shift that makes it difficult for communication. It sounds like the same > language but it simply has different meanings. Perhaps this is the reason > it is so difficult to understand the explanations for some of the goings on > at City Hall. Simply a different "Reality" because of a paradigm shift. > What color is the sky when looked at from City Hall? > REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
