Reply to All Souls UU in DC - why did Rev. Susan leave?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "All Souls UU in DC - why did Rev. Susan leave?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]She was doing his job for 3 months every year without additional compensation and had 30+ years of experience when she started. Rob was hired fresh out of seminary at 29). So she should have been compensated better. Someone posted a chart on Facebook with a comparison of their relative salaries and UUA guidelines and it doesn't look great.

No, church members don't have the budget. We vote on an abbreviated version at the annual membership meeting. The Board also only ever saw Rob's salary and a total number for staffing compensation. This is why the Board was unaware that she was being paid below the UUA minimum rate for her position. She says in her video that she got a raise of $9,000 in 2017 to correct this underpayment which aligns with the information in the chart.

Whoever heard of a $9,000 raise for someone with 4 years of performance issues? [/quote]

According to your own post, she was paid below the UU minimum rate, and the $9000 raise was to correct that.  But you are also using the $9000 raise to suggest that she did not have performance issues.  Which one is it?  You can't have it both ways; make up your mind.  [/quote]

Commenters on Facebook have pointed out that the UUA minimum is a nonbinding recommendation. [b]If the raise was to correct an issue she should be getting back pay. [/b]If it wasn't, obviously it was a raise based in part on the desire to recognize performance. I'm going under the assumption that since it wasn't retroactive that it was in part a merit increase. [/quote]
That’s not how it works. An organization can determine an employee is paid below market and increase their salary to closer to or at the market pay. No backpay would be awarded. [/quote]

Uh huh. For an employee with years-long performance issues? I've never seen that done, because it would undercut the case for disciplinary action, up to and including termination, just as we are seeing play out now.[/quote]
The issue of being owed backpay has nothing to do with her being a performance problem. You stated that if a person is given a pay adjustment because of their pay is not inline with religious norms, they must be paid backpay. That is not true.

Whether or not she had performance issues or if this was a merit increase versus an equity adjustment has nothing to do with the point raised above. You made an incorrect statement.

By the way, if she was an at will employee all of your points about why she got an increase are moot. And DC is an at-will jurisdiction. Do you know if she had a contract altering the at-will arrangement? The news article says there is now a dispute over severance. She may have had a contract.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics