美世的總體薪酬研究課件

1、17 七月 2022美世的總體薪酬研究AgendaKey Program ObjectivesMarket Analysis Competitive Assessment of Pay PracticesReview of Pay Plan Design Job Grading ProcessOther Pay Programs and Practices Reviewed by MercerCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsObservations and RecommendationsKey Program ObjectivesAscertain the

2、competitiveness of Metros salaries and benefits relative to defined marketsReview the current pay program design and methodology relative to best practicesReview the existing pay programs of other affiliated agencies within the Metro system for soundness and effectiveness Recommend changes, where ap

3、propriate, to improve the competitiveness and soundness of the compensation program components relative to best practicesAssist in communicating and presenting the results to ensure understanding throughout MetroMarket AnalysisMethodologyA series of jobs were market priced covering various areas of

4、the government 167 jobs were reviewed relative to salary and pay plan competitivenessData was gathered from published survey sources for 151 jobsA custom survey was conducted in which included data on 40 jobs (24 of these 40 jobs also incorporated published survey data) 39 jobs, representing a subse

5、t of the 167, were used to assess the competitiveness of Metros total compensation package covering salaries and benefits Two methods of surveying were used to compile salary information:Published survey data from Mercers compensation library covering various industriesCustom survey of benchmark cit

6、ies comparable to Metro in size and consistent with those benchmark cities used in previous compensation studiesFor the benefits analysis, plan information was obtained from the benchmark cities; high level information was also obtained from Mercer surveys of general (mostly private sector) employer

7、s in the southern/southeastern USMarket AnalysisGeneral Industry SurveysThe 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 jobs were priced, which included

8、 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 SurveyThe custom survey reflects sal

9、ary data from 17 city/county governments and focuses on jobs that are government-specific Atlanta, Georgia*Charlotte, North Carolina*Cincinnati, Ohio*Columbus, Ohio*Fulton County, Georgia*Hamilton County, Ohio* *Indianapolis, IndianaJacksonville, FloridaKansas City, Missouri*Benefit data was obtaine

10、d from 10 of these municipalities *Hamilton County served as a substitute for Tampa who did not respond Louisville, Kentucky*Mecklenburg County, North CarolinaMemphis, TennesseeOklahoma City, Oklahoma*Richmond, Virginia*San Antonio, Texas*Shelby County, TennesseeSt. Louis, MissouriWith respect to ac

11、tual salaries paid*, Metros pay practices are competitive with the marketOn average, Metro is paying 101% of market for comparable jobsMarket data is reflective of salaries paid at the median (50th percentile) of the market The vast majority of jobs (95%) are being paid within +/- 20% of the market

12、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 assigned to the same job code.100% of Market MedianLower

13、 Paying Organizations120%Metro 101% of market medianMarket MedianCompetitive Assessment of Pay PracticesDefinition of MedianA targeted position at the 50th percentile reflects the central tendency of the distributionBy definition, the median is the middle of the distributionas many organizations pay

14、 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 dataThe following example illustrates how a median value is obtained from a survey where multiple responses are providedOrganiza

15、tionAverage 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 results. In this example, the simple average would be $33,48

16、6.Competitive Assessment of Pay PracticesExample Market PricingCompetitive Assessment of Pay PracticesActual Salaries PaidCompetitive Assessment of Pay PracticesPay PlansFollowing the 2001 study, “control points” were designated within each of the pay plans to serve as market references for establis

17、hing 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 functional in performing all aspects of the work The compe

18、titiveness 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 surveysIn aggregate, the overall competitiveness of Metros pay plans is 99% of market median Conformity across the pay plans and among the ben

19、chmark 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 majority of the benchmarks are properly gradedThis also reflect

20、s 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 As part of the 2001 study, the pay plans were reviewed for design soundness and relative to best practices. Revisions were im

21、plemented to address certain weaknessesOur 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 mathematical characteristics conform to sound principles of compensatio

22、n designAlthough 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 movement in the later yearsTwo performance steps were created in 200

23、1 for the SR and PS pay plans to create opportunities for employees to earn lump sum performance bonusesJob Grading ProcessThe results of the market analysis will serve as the framework for assessing the appropriateness of how the jobs are currently gradedThose benchmark jobs whose grade control poi

24、nts 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 may move to a different grade so that internal equity relation

25、ships and career ladders are preservedOther Pay Programs and Practices Reviewed by MercerAs part of this study, Mercer reviewed the pay programs of several affiliated Metro agencies and found them to be operating in accordance with acceptable principals and compatible to Metros pay practices MDHAHos

26、pitalHealth DepartmentNCACMAC Election Commission Comments 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 pay studies followed the same methodology as this study with recomm

27、endations based on best practices Metro Department HeadsCouncil Members and Elected Officials District Attorneys Office Board of Education MembersCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsMethodologyBenefit plan information was obtained for 10 city/county governments for benefit plans applicable to General,

28、 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 appropriateInformation was obtained for only those plans that are currently offered to newly-hired employees; “gra

29、ndfathered” plans were not surveyed Where 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 A set of 39 jobs (“Benchmark Profiles”) was chosen to assess the compe

30、titiveness of Metros benefits34 General jobs2 Police jobs3 Fire jobsBenefit 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 common set for Police and FireA common set of actuarial assumptions and m

31、ethodsCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsMethodology The 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 affect the cost of benefit plans are removedThe use of common demographi

32、c profiles, assumptions and methods results in an “apples-to-apples” comparison of plan values across organizations For the purposes of this comparison, “value” is determined from the employees perspective and is defined as the market replacement value of the employer-provided benefitsMarket replace

33、ment value is the estimated amount of pretax salary that an employee would need in order to replace the employer-provided benefits in the open marketThe value of a benefit to the employee is often very different from the cost of that benefit to the employerFor example, an individually-purchased medi

34、cal 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 costs of the plans to the organizations Because the values do not reflect Metr

35、os 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 Total Benefits value is the sum of the values of Retirement/Savings, Health/Group and Time Loss benefitsBenefits were

36、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 Job-specific values were rolled up into a “workforce average” value, weighted by the number of incumbents in e

37、ach job, for General vs. Police vs. FireValues within the range of 95% to 105% of median should be interpreted as essentially at medianCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsWorkforce Average by Benefit CategoryRank7561178758765Competitive Assessment of BenefitsRetirement/SavingsRetirement/Savings is the

38、 sum of the values of Defined Benefit, Defined Contribution, Social Security and Post-retirement MedicalEach employers retirement program design is uniqueWhen considering the value of any employers retirement program, it is important to consider the Retirement/Savings value as a whole rather than fo

39、cus 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 package could be the same; likewise, whether or not an employer contributes to S

40、ocial Security will affect the value of the total packageIncome benefits (DB, DC, Social Security)reasons for rankingMetro does not require employee contributions to the DB plan, while several peers doMetro contributes toward Social Security; 4 peers do not for General, 5 do not for Police and 7 do

41、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 unreduced retirement benefits unrelated to age after attaining a certain service

42、level (20-30 years); the valuation method assumes additional years of benefit when plans allow unreduced early retirementCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsRetirement/SavingsRetiree Medical BenefitsPlan for General employees ranks 8th out of 11, with a benefit value of 86% of peer group medianPlan fo

43、r 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 reasons for the results, but the following are major factors:Some peers have rich

44、er benefits and/or lower contributions than Metro2 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 premiums8 peers coordinate with Medicare to pay more for retirees than what the plan would pay for active employee

45、s, with three paying to meet 100% of expenses; Metro uses a “carve-out” approach that ensures parity with the benefits of active employees4 peers have service-based contributions for General employees and three do for Police and Fire, resulting in higher contributions for shorter lengths of service,

46、 and vice-versaCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsWorkforce Average for Health and Group BenefitsRank563862765Competitive Assessment of BenefitsMedical PlanActivesMetros CIGNA HMO plan was valuedMetros plan for General Employees ranks 5th out of 11 peers, with a benefit value of 101% of market median

47、Metros plan for Police Employees ranks 8th out of 11 peers, with a benefit value of 94% of market medianMetros plan for Fire Employees ranks 7th out of 11 peers, with a benefit value of 95% of market median (two peers had slightly different plans for Police vs. Fire)The plan has low employee cost-sh

48、aring (deductibles, co-pays, etc.) when services are received, relative to the peersMetros employee contributions are higher than most peersCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsDental PlanFor all employee groups, Metros plan ranks 6th out of 11 peers, with a value of 87% of the market median3 peers cha

49、rge employees 100% of the premium, so the value reflects only the tax savings on the employee-paid premium2 peers have lesser coverage and/or higher employee contributions5 peers have somewhat richer benefits and lower employee contributionsCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsLife InsuranceMetros bene

50、fit for General Employees ranks 3rd of 11, with a value 140% of market median for the workforce averageMetros benefit for Police ranks 2nd and 5th for Fire with values of 116% and 100% of market median for Police and Fire, respectivelyHowever, the results vary by pay level, because Metros flat $50,0

51、00 benefit is more competitive for lower paid employees than for the higher paidCompetitive Assessment of BenefitsTime Loss BenefitsTime loss benefits include vacation, holidays/personal, sick leave, short-term disability (STD) and long-term disability (LTD)Metros total time loss package for General

52、 Employees ranks 11th of 11; however, the benefit value is 87% of peer groups medianThis result is somewhat misleading due to the valuation of vacation benefits using a workforce average service levelVacation was valued at 11 years service, the average for the General employee benchmark jobsThe Metr

53、o vacation schedule is less competitive at 11 years than at other 5-year service intervals observed, so over an employees career, the benefit is competitiveHolidays are valued at 100% of medianMetros sick leave/disability benefits package is competitiveMetros total time loss package ranks 5th of 11

54、for Police and Fire with a benefit value of 105% of medianVacation ranks 4th of 10 with a value of 111% of median; the 20 day benefit is highly competitive for short service employees, but less so for higher service levels (about 16+ years)Holidays/personal days ranks 2nd of 11 with a value of 130%

55、of medianMetros sick leave/disability benefits package is competitiveObservations and RecommendationsCompensationThe results of the market analysis indicate that Metros pay practices are very competitive with median pay practices in the market Actual salaries paid, in aggregate, are at 101% of marke

56、t medianMetros pay plans, in aggregate, are at 99% of market medianConformity around the median is very goodthe majority of benchmark jobs are being paid in proximity to the market medianThe current grading of the jobs is excellent95% were found to be graded fairly after taking into account the market and relationships to other jobs Metros pay scales (SR, TLS, PS and CO) will not need to