Employees press board on UKG timekeeping costs and pay-step discrepancies; staff to respond with analysis
Loading...
Summary
Community and union representatives urged the board to address a problematic UKG timekeeping rollout and long-standing salary‑placement differences that left some long‑tenured staff behind peers hired from other districts; staff said they will deliver a detailed response within days.
Jordan Thomas, executive vice president of Red River United, told the Caddo Parish School Board on May 27 that the district’s UKG timekeeping system cost "around a $400,000 initial setup, $200,000 annually" and has not functioned as intended, contributing to employee grievances.
"It has never done what was intended to do and is being revisited due to employee grievances," Thomas said during the public‑comment portion of the budget work session and asked the board to consider related compensation adjustments while reviewing the budget.
Board members and staff also discussed long‑standing pay placement questions tied to a 2013 change in how the district converted experience and other factors into pay steps. Several board members and staff said conversion rules introduced under Act 1 (the district transition described in 2013) led to situations where some hires from other districts were placed on higher steps than some long‑term Caddo employees; staff reported they are assembling a detailed analysis of affected employees and the cost to remediate.
Superintendent Burton told the board staff would prepare an accurate response and circulate it in the coming days: "staff will have that to you within probably within the next 2 days." The HR team confirmed the district continues active recruiting to fill vacancies and said some instructional specialists have been reassigned temporarily to cover special‑education needs.
Board members also raised the UKG subscription’s ongoing cost; staff noted the system’s recurring costs will be reflected in the next budget cycle and that some implementation expenses will be accommodated by reallocations elsewhere in the business services budget.
No salary‑policy changes were approved at the May 27 session; board members requested the staff analysis to quantify how many employees are affected and what a remediation would cost.
