ACHTUNG: This is not a “fair and balanced” article. It is an editorial by the editor.
“It’s deja vu all over again.” — Baseball Hall of Famer Yogi Berra
Dorr Township Trustee Chandler Stanton made history repeat itself Thursday night at the board meeting.
Stanton, who was elected to his seat in November 2020 without opposition was accused in this space a year ago of being a male chauvinist pig on the issue of pay for hourly township employees. The accusation stands.
Stanton was politically incorrect in April 2021 when he insisted that Maintenance Supervisor Randy Grantham be paid more than Office Manager Vicki Fifelski. The Township Board was faced with a proposal to bump her pay from $18.70 to $20 per hour, and to grant an increase to Grantham from $19.50 to $20 an hour.
Stanton told his colleagues he believes the maintenance guy’s work is more important, though Supervisor Jeff Miling suggested the comparison was between apples and oranges. Miling pointed out that Grantham had been employed with the township for a little more than two years while Fifelski has run the office now for nine years.
The supervisor also spoke highly of Fifelski’s performance over the years, adding she’d be difficult to replace and she has valuable skills in assessing. He editorialized that’s it’s difficult to work when not valued and provided fairness.
However, even though raises for both to $20 was approved, Stanton a year moved to bump Grantham up further to $20.50 and his proposal passed 4-3.
Fast forward to this past week, when Stanton moved to have both employees get a $1.50 per house raise, which would have kept maintenance supervisor above office manager by 50 cents again. Stanton this time insisted that the maintenance supervisor’s work is more hazardous outdoors, but Trustee Dan Weber pointed out that dealing with irate township residents can be just as dangerous.
Supervisor Jeff Miling amended Stanton’s motion to have both employees paid the same per hour at $23.21. The amendment passed 6-0.
Justice delayed for a year is justice denied for a year. I hope we’ve seen the last of this ancient relic and insist on equal pay for equal work.
In my opinion and estimation this “article” sounds like comments from a unbalanced, grumpy, and feeble old man. But i agree, not fair and balanced on many levels.
Dorr Township has approximately 10,000 residents, with about 48% who are female. Information that is lacking in your opinion piece is whether or not the Dorr Township Board has a pay scale in place for its employees based on non gender requisites such as respective job titles w/ comparison data for salaries/hourly pay among similar sized townships, performance reviews and time / rate of employment. It would seem Dorr Township does not and as a growing township this should be the business of the Board, not quibbling over $1.50 raises. There are numerous companies that can assist the Township Board to put that in place thereby eliminating ambiguity among the public, among the Board members themselves and for the benefit of valued Township employees.
Both of these positions are necessary for the Township to function smoothly. Both involve supervising employees, hiring staff, budgets, problem solving, responding to public concerns, good communication skills, organization, and the ability to coordinate with other Township units. It goes without saying that each of the positions function in the setting that is required with the equipment provided by township residents to get the job done. All of the Dorr Township employees know what their assigned work area is expected to be at hire. I find it ironic that the Township Board, who do their work indoors by the way, recently gave themselves a 5.9% COLA increase.
Boy oh boy. Are you desperate and must create sensationalism? Funny stuff. Why aren’t the others who voted to give the maintenence worker a raise mentioned….. perhaps an alternate agenda??????? Well logic would lead one to believe so.
Please come up with something new……….Same ol` garbage………Seems you are often trying to create controversy and division.
I see nothing, in your own story, that shows Mr. Stanton is basing his opinions on appropriate wages on gender. In fact, as you are appearing to label office work as a female job, and maintenance to be a male occupation, you are sounding a bit more sexist to me in your efforts to smear yet another public servant… Mr. Editor, do you consider office work to be female, and maintenance to be male, or why else would you make that ridiculous and dangerous claim? As I have no first hand knowledge of the situation or its players, I am only basing my questions on your recollection of the events. According to you, Mr. Stanton provided his reasonings based on his understanding of the job tasks/environments. Please provide an example of his using gender in his reasonings.