Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hiring Incentives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board, district and union spar over who sets hiring incentives for hard‑to‑fill posts
Summary
District asked for flexibility to adjust hiring incentives for unexpected vacancies; union members sought to retain a 5–10% range and to keep the union involved in approval of incentives attached to postings.
The district urged flexibility to offer or increase hiring incentives for hard‑to‑fill positions without delay, citing instances where slow responses cost the district a candidate. Negotiators debated whether incentives should be pre‑set on a posted job or adjustable when an unexpected vacancy arises.
Union members recalled past incentive programs and warned against automatic removal of union approval for incentives. One union negotiator said a prior incentive was a "bonus of I think it was around $1,900" for loan repayment, underscoring how incentives have been used in the past. Another representative summarized the current contractual practice: "The incentive will be posted with the job class on approval... it's not the candidate. It's the position."
District presenters said they wanted the ability, in narrow situations, to increase an already‑posted incentive (for example, from 5% up toward 10%) if a preferred candidate would not accept the lower rate and immediate contact with union representatives was unavailable. The union pushed to preserve the 5–10% range and to retain a role in approving deviations from that range.
The parties agreed to draft clearer language that preserves a posting‑based incentive range while allowing an expedited internal process to raise an offer in urgent hiring situations, with the district to produce proposed wording and the union to review it in caucus.
Next steps: district will produce language giving a limited ability to adjust incentives within a specified range; union will review and respond.
