I agree that paid as clerking hours might be a defensible option, but I think a case for compensation against the other job could be made.
Consider the case of the town physician, who also holds a government position in this small town. He does not do that for the money, but as a form of civic engagement. If he were required to be away for town business for two weeks, he might well say it was not realistic to give up working in his more lucrative medical practice to complete this training. The town would have to make a decision based on the value of keeping him in his government role.
But I’m not sure that there is a fair way to calculate this. This is more like someone who babysits sometimes, but not always, and often on nights and weekends, saying “but I might have a babysitting job.”
My father and sister are both in sales…there are SELDOM times you can’t timeshift your own activities in sales. She’s a RA in a town of 220 people. What are the chances her clients are going to say “oh, you can’t show me that house until 5:30…forget it!”
But I suppose you could review her tax returns for the past year, divide her income by 2000, come up with an hourly rate, and pay her that. I’m still not sure it would be fair - since she has the option to timeshift, which a lot of people don’t get.
Well, the absolute wrong way to do this would be to ask her “So, how much do you think you’ll make in commissions those 2 weeks?” Not that there probably isn’t precedent for that in local government…
Or you could offer a flat fee as compensation for the other job. How badly does the City want to keep this particular clerk? Is it worth a couple hundred bucks vs the cost of recruiting/training a replacement?
Ignore all the commissions and such and think of it like 2 regular jobs.
Work job A, job A pays you.
Work job B, job B pays you.
If she can work RE appointments around her CC schedule, good for her.
If she does not like the idea, maybe there is someone with no job who would be happy as a part time city clerk.
Time to nuke that little “I am a precious snowflake” bullshit now. It sets a very bad precedent to others who may step into part time roles as the city grows.
What if she was a multimillionaire real estate developer who makes the equivalent of hundreds of dollars an hour in salary. would the city want to pay for tens of thousands of dollars to send her? She accepted the job at its compensation level.
What are you talking about? It doesn’t say anywhere that she’s demanding to be compensated, just that she pointed out that she’s going to lose earnings.
But whether a sale would be made during the time the worker is at training is speculative. Thus a sure thing of a set amount may be better than the possibility of nothing from her point of view.
Yeah I think it’s kinda bullshit that she’s going to loose a full 2 weeks of commission. She can still do calls and emails at night, move closings up or back by a week (if she even has any), etc. If she does have to send a client to another agent then she will earn some professional courtesy points that she can use when she needs a favor.
But that said, it’s your town and if you think she’s so valuable then you can decide if it’s worth it to send her under whatever terms she requests. But I can’t see it being worth it, especially for a class that is not yet required – isn’t it possible that if it becomes required they will come up with more options/locations and it won’t be a 2 week hassle to send her?
How many people who look at houses do it during normal working hours? Seriously? When I was looking, I went after work because, well, I worked. If I didn’t work, I wouldn’t have any reason to be looking for a house, because I would be broke.
It probably is (unfair), but I think that’s why there are objections, because she doesn’t have a regular job. She’s gone weeks at a time without a commission, so it smacks of opportunism when she asks to be compensated for this training. Maybe I should have mentioned this earlier, but awhile back she was billing the city for mileage to the town where she works her real estate job. If she happened to do an errand for the city, like make a bank deposit or meet with the city’s attorney, she’d bill for mileage to work for that day.
We don’t have enough people willing to do these part-time city jobs so we might bend over a bit to keep them happy, but we’re at a loss in this situation. We don’t want to set a precedent that we can’t honor for everyone.
Did I miss whether you said she was paid at all for her city job? It would not be unreasonable to have her ‘on the clock’ for her training time, but I agree with most others, compensating her for her other job where she might not earn anything during the time is over the top.
My suggestion is that you ask to see her tax filings for last year so you can consider what is a fair rate. I would guess she will refuse the request.
Or better yet, ask her what she things fair compensation should be, THEN ask for her tax returns to justify it. You might see some remarkable backpedalling.
I think she should be paid for whatever her base hourly rate was in calculating her CC position for attending the training. If this is something that benefits the city, she should be on the clock for it.
However she is on the clock to the city, not as an REA.