Underpaid Shelby County Circuit Court employees – half of the county’s payroll – will have to settle for the already budgeted 6% pay increases for all employees after county commissioners shot down a supplement during the Monday, Nov. 18 meeting.
The amended resolution sought to provide “pay parity” to all qualifying employees above the upcoming Jan. 1 wage hike. However, a debate over parity versus equity created both a rock and hard place for the resolution.
“We tried as best we could to respond to the commission’s request that the lower earners have a higher-paid increase than all other employees, at the same time trying to preserve a 6% increase for all employees,” said Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris.
It flatlined after commissioners split 6-6 on the third and final vote.
In favor were commissioners Miska Clay-Bibbs, Charlie Caswell, Mickell Lowery, Shante Avant, Henri Brooks and Erika Sugarmon. Members Amber Mills, Mick Wright, David Bradford, Edmund Ford, Jr., Brandon Morrison and Britney Thornton voted against the resolution.
The resolution would have given the “lowest band” an 8% increase, which would amount to 2% above the average county employee’s scheduled raise. Boosts would have diminished as salaries increased. For example, the next group would have received a 7.6% raise, followed 7.1%. The highest compensated eligible workers would have netted a 6.4% increase.
Harris presented the final pitch in a often amended proposal. The original intent was to provide raises to the lowest-paid circuit court employees. Eventually, all underpaid county employees were thrown into a sidecar at the request of commission chairman Mark Whaley.
This was to prevent employees from other agencies from jumping ship to another for raises. In that game, revenue generating offices – like the circuit court – would typically have an upper hand.
“It is our intention to raise all of the boats inside Shelby County government and not just any particular group of individuals, or department,” explained Shelby County CAO Harold Collins.
Intentions aside, Harris’ representation of the percentage point-based increases as “equitable” received immediate pushback.
“Seven percent…what does that look like, $2,500 for the working poor, whereas someone earning $100,000, a 6% increase. You’re talking about $6,000. If you’re making $200,000 a year, you’re talking about $12,000,” disagreed Sugarmon.
The commissioner previously sponsored an “equitable salary schedule” that passed with eight votes. The goal was to raise the floor on county salaries to $40,000. It was vetoed by Harris in September. The omission of “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds” of pay schedule employees was cited as a the “main reason.”
Harris also said the vetoed item created “compression issues,” where new employees could “leapfrog” more experienced workers on the pay scale.
It takes nine votes to override a veto.
Sugarmon dismissed the Harris’ defense of the amendment by pointing out that the concerns came from an accounting error that was corrected.
After the executive action, Sugarmon reopened discussions with the administration, but “did not sign onto” the eventual proposal.
In some respects, the two weren’t working on the same page. The administration used the federal minimum wage of $15 as a marker while crafting the proposal. Sugarmon cited a more up-to-date source.
“According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s living wage calculate, as of February 2024, the living wage for Memphis is for a single adult with no children, $20.60 per hour…” said Sugarmon.
The figure begins an exponential climb when children are factored into the calculation.
“When you have a dollar amount, it is more equitable,” said Sugarmon. “What we’re trying to do is bring the people at the bottom – the working poor – a living wage. That was the whole idea,” said Sugarmon
Other commissioners concurred with the assessment.
“For the record, this is parity, not equity. Let’s not intentionally, or unintentionally change the words for a narrative,” said Ford.
When asked, several interested IBEW employees in attendance gave a thumbs up in support of the resolution. Their approval was enough to sway Sugarmon.
“I still don’t think it’s right.”
After the thumbs up, Ford requested a motion to bifurcate the incremental raises into four separate items to be voted on individually. Wright objected.
The motion failed 7-4.
In addition to equity issues, the use of the county’s fund balance for a recurring costs also doomed the proposal.
Commissioners will likely revisit the issue in April, when a compensation study is expected.
