Laserfiche WebLink
CON’S TO DESIGNATION VIA JOB DESCRIPTION: <br /> It may be more difficult to find candidates who meet the minimum qualifications. <br /> It will be more difficult to grant different levels of pay for different levels of <br />qualification/certification – we may have to create three levels of the position with different wage <br />scales. <br /> It cannot be taken away as easily – the employee would have to be reclassified to a different <br />position, but then the Court would not be able to backfill without getting approval for additional FTE <br />or terminating the employee no longer qualified. <br /> <br />GENERAL PRO’S/CON’S TO TRANSLATOR PAY <br />PRO’S: <br /> Provides those employees qualified to perform additional duties that benefit the Court with <br />recognition via compensation. <br /> Provides the Court with instant access to services – no need to schedule an outside translator or use <br />the Language Line. <br />CON’S: <br /> Translator pay has not been implemented by policy or contract in Kittitas County; this may set a new <br />expectation and if the BOCC decides to provide this additional pay it should be clearly noted in the <br />Memorandum of Understanding with the Union that it is strictly due to the Court’s obligation to <br />provide interpreter services specifically for Court-related translation. There are many other <br />departments who could make the case for interpreter pay because it would help them provide <br />better service to the public. <br /> It could add another level of complexity to wage studies (another reason why stipend or premium <br />pay may be more beneficial than designation by job description – it keeps the comparison more <br />apples to apples among district courts in WA; according to the survey only 15% of courts use staff <br />translators). <br />