Super lives in 3 Bedroom??

qq

How normal is it for an employer to cut the salary of an employee because they see her buying Gucci bags, wearing designer clothes, and taking taxis rather than the subway? She's not good-looking or classy enough to warrant such spending.

The apt is part of his compensation. It may not be how you'd spend your money, but it ain't your money. Now if you're suggesting giving him the option of a higher salary but a smaller apt, that's another story.

"but it ain't your money."

yes it is, our maintenance and very generous xmas bonuses pay for it all...

..we've been kicking this issue around at board meetings, but finally have secured 2 other supers with years of experience willing to join our community and are more than willing to take our proposed unit.

if he won't agree, we have people lined up.. we just have to deal with prop mgmt/union issues.

You (and by this, I mean the building) had agreed to pay the guy a certain level of compensation. Now you want to reduce it. That's fine, he won't like it just like anyone else who gets their comp cut from a previously-agreed level. What will sting more in this case is that there is probably no perception, on his part, of an employer who is struggling and therefore must make the painful decision. But that's an employer's prerogative. A stupid employer, IMO, that is thinking of doing a drastic cut in compensation rather than right-pricing the comp to begin with, but there it is.

What I object to is your attempt to justify it by declaring what a person like him in society should be spending his compensation on. How would you like it if your employer wanted to cut your comp, and then turned around and added insult to injury by saying it's justified because the way you spend money is frivolous. The money stops being your employer's once it's paid to you.

second inonada. offer the super the cash equivalent of using a 1br instead of the 3br if a 1br is available. chances are, he might take on the deal.

So what are you planning to do with the uppity super's 3 bed after you've booted him out?

Sell it?

What's wrong with your financials that this is just now an issue?

How will you handle the bad karma?

karma?

Karma is what lazy people believe to save them from the reality of the world that you have to work hard and be personally responsible if you want to achieve things.

wow. one of my biggest pet peeves. "Hes single, no intention of marrying, no kids, pets, etc...".

So -- somebody's compensation for a job should be altered based on their life choices?

If the job is $X a 3 br apt -- than that is the pay for the job. Whether or not he is marries and has kids... or pets.

Who told the other people to breed? Their choice.

Not his.

IF you think it appropriate to give a super -- with or without kids -- only a one bedroom -- have at it. I doubt that is the market.

>wow. one of my biggest pet peeves. "Hes single, no intention of marrying, no kids, pets, etc...". So -- somebody's compensation for a job should be altered based on their life choices?

there's no need to alter his compensation as he should be paid more in cash in return for the move to the 1Br. if that's what the super prefers, a higher cash compensation, it's a win-win for both parties.

"Hes single, no intention of marrying, no kids, pets, etc...No idea why our sponsor/condo mgmt placed him in one of the largest units in the building, which he doesn't pay for.."

I totally agree.

Let's also cut the salaries of every unmarried male and female executive, while we're at it.

They don't need generous six-figure salaries since they're single, have no intention of marrying and raising a family, etc.

> Let's also cut the salaries of every unmarried male and female executive, while we're at it.
>They don't need generous six-figure salaries since they're single, have no intention of marrying and raising a family, etc.

And clearly WE know all about THEIR intentions, and should judge them for it and adjust their compensation accordingly!

Lowering someone's compensation based on their marital status and the like is also ILLEGAL. If you move him into a 1 bedroom, I hope your board gets sued.

cannot believe i agree with socialist on sth. moving the super should keep a struggling lawyer busy for a little while at least.

does the super get taxed based on the benefit of having a "free" 3 bedroom? seems like it should be part of his comp package. perhaps you should add the rent savings to his W2, so that his compensation is properly represented to the IRS... or, does this happen already?

good luck OP, see this tied up in legal knots for years.

That's a good question about taxes and his compensation. If it is indeed considered part of the package/compensation, what are the tax consequences?

I did some research, the apartment is tax free to the super! Its good to be a super in NYC.

MrSuttonPlace: It's super to be a super in NYC.

Boards move supers all the time. This board probably bought the three-bedroom from the sponsor thinking that'd be most flexible. If it wants to it can rent a one-bedroom for this super, rent out the three-bedroom until it has a super with a family, and so on.

Corporate america cuts compensation to employees all the time and also ups compensation. I think if mtce is an issue with the building and cuts need to be made that giving the super the option of going to a 1 bedroom vs a 3 bedroom is totally reasonable. In this economy i have had my pay cut, 401k elinimated and health care premiums increased. I believe if he had a family with kids that it would be another issue but it seems that potentially he would be fine in a 1 bedroom without any harm to anyone. Yes, paycuts suck BUT its reality right now. We upgraded my super to a 2 bedroom after he had a child....sometimes in works in the reverse as well..

OMG, you're taking away a major benefit on the basis of marital status and you ALREADY HAVE THE REPLACEMENT EMPLOYEES if the guy balks? ha ha ha!! Good luck in that grievance arbitration that you won't be winning. If you're lucky, the other side will let you settle before it gets too expensive. If I lived in your building, I'd be tempted to sue the board for gross stupidity. Let the guy keep his freaking apartment or compensate him for moving him into a smaller one. BTW, real employers consult with a management-side employment attorney so they don't do stupid things like this and waste everyone's money.

oh, and since your super is in a union, you are going to have hell to pay if you move the super. The union could very well shut down your building and pull all of the workers out. Residents will have to do ALL the work themselves. Making residents put out their own garbage is a great way to lose a board election!

May the union's inflatable rat show up at your building and not leave until your board pulls its head out of its a**.

Those damn unions again...this time protecting those greedy building workers who take out your trash, fix your toilets, and buzz you when your Shun Lee delivery arrives. Why should we pay these ingrates at all? It should be enough that we allow them to make our busy lives easier. And the nerve of this Super in particular! Not being married and no interest in having kids? That's clearly not what the Lord wants.

This country has lost it's way.

Spartacus, thanks for your extremes that have never been suggested.

My question, if this super is any good, and if he's getting paid at the market, what's he worried about? Surely another building would hire him if this building wasn't the right one for him. What's he need a union's "protection" for?

Ss400k, be nice to people on your way up, you never know who you might encounter on you way down!
Just be thankful for you luck in life, something that a lot of people in this city do not, like you.

oh yeah, the inflatable rat. That thing is EVERYWHERE. And it's coming for you...

can we ask ours to move to a smaller (cheaper) apt because he is a twit?

Oh, Huntersburg...it's called irony. And just because there's not been any anti-union hysteria on this thread, (yet), doesn't mean it's not a factor. But to answer your question as to why a union is needed in this situation; it's so this Board of geniuses can't just decide to change the compensation deal that they agreed to, just because they disapprove of the Super's life choices, or how he spends his money. It would be like one of your clients telling you he was paying you less than what had been agreed on, just because you're humorless. That would be wrong. Right?

The OP chose some unfortunate wording, but if the super's compensation is significantly above market norms in a building that is having financial issues, then the board has an obligation to investigate their options. As a shareholder, it's what I would want/expect. That said, dragging the building into a court case/lawsuit would be counterproductive, so I'd also expect that the building would talk to professionals who could help them determine their legal options and the potential consequences.

any leverage if he's a twit?

I don't understand why it is such a big deal to consider lowering the compensation. As has been mentioned, there are many, many people that had to take paycuts, benefits cuts etc in this economy. Why is a super off limits? When I signed up 5 years ago there was matching 401K and contribution to a separate retirement account. Both were suspended. That was a big part of the compensation.

What's wrong with asking the super if he will move to a 1BR and if he doesn't want to, inform him/her that they will need to find a super that is willing to work for 1BR compensation?

bob420, you mean you want the market to work? Things change and people on all sides have to respond?

I smell lawsuit.

This business of nepotism & cronyism by the developer to give such over the top handouts to a lousy super was really ridiculous leading up to 2008/2009. I was considering buying at the LookOut Hill condo in Brooklyn Heights (http://streeteasy.com/nyc/building/the-lookout-hill-condominium) until I learned the super had the largest unit the the building - the largest 3 bedroom available and one of the most expensive units in the building (excluding the more expensive penthouses but much smaller).

Happy I passed.

Pray tell, bob. What fraction of comp was that for you? Like 5-10%? This is probably more like a 30% cut. But as so many people have said, that ain't the issue. The issue is because the motivation for the cut is derived by his wasteful spending of his compensation (unethical reasoning in the eyes of many), and even worse, related to his marital and family status (illegal).

How would you feel if your employer selectively cut your salary 30% based on the perception that you didn't need it, because you didn't have a family to support. Yet they keep your equally-competent (or incompetent, as the case may be) colleague at full salary because he's got a wife and kids to support. Or because you're black, and he's white, with the reasoning being that black people can get by with less. To paraphrase the OP's logic, it was stupid for the employer to ever consider paying a black person equally to a white person to begin with.

Ya get it? The issue is not the change in comp, drastic as it may be, but the motivation by at least this one board member.

I don't agree. I think the motivation for the cut is to save money.

It sounds like the super was over compensated from the beginning. Just because someone at some point decided to set up that arrangement, doesn't mean they have to continue to do it.

Don't be so overly dramatic inonada. ss400k is just jealous/pissed that her poor handyman is living in a better / bigger apartment. It's kinda like the maid's room is larger than the master bedroom.

aren't most supers in NYC overcomensated?

I think the if the issue is financial...ie building needs more cash, etc.....this is just one of the many areas that are potential cost savers. It could be that a prior board made an erroneous decision in giving him a 3 bed apartment. It doesnt hurt to have a chat with the super and let him know thatt he board is looking into a variety of cost cuts and that he is valued etc but potentially he might be downgraded to a 1 bedroom......see his reaction, etc...YES...you cant discriminate based on marital status, etc.....but to me it seems that 1 person doesnt really need a 3 bedroom and its not in the best interest of the condo to continue unless the super has a real need for 3 bedrooms....

"but to me it seems that 1 person doesnt really need a 3 bedroom and its not in the best interest of the condo to continue unless the super has a real need for 3 bedrooms...."

Maybe you don't need the salary tht your compnay pays you. Perhaps it is not in the best interest of your company to continue paying you your current salary unless you have a real need for it.

If the company thought it was not in their best interests to be paying him, they would not continue to do it.

BOB...exactly....salaries and benefits get cut and increased all the time in corporate america....ups and down based on how the business is doing...if my company felt i was overcompensated they would either get rid of me or lower my pay.....also, i dont think comparing salary to a 3 bedroom apartment is a direct apple to apple comparison....

There's another recent thread on SE wherein the comment describes a super living in the cellar.
He's going to be super-angry if he reads this thread.

Trade Unions in City Confront a Rise in Nonunion Projects
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/nyregion/19construction.html

thank g-d NYC won't be the next Detroit

"salaries and benefits get cut and increased all the time in corporate america....ups and down based on how the business is doing."

Your 100% correct. In corporate AMerica executive salaries are INCREASED while worker salaries are DECREASED. It's like a see-saw. The executive part of the see-saw keeps going up and up while the worker half of it keeps going down and down until it hits the floor really hard.

Developers are using cheaper, non-union labor to build. But will they pass the savings on to the consumer? Heck no. If the unions were smart, they would call up 311 and anonymously report safety violations at the non union projects. Call everyday.

Non union labor is also ingerior to union labor,a s the workers have substantially less training. Union workers go through a 5 year apprenticeship. Non union workers don't.

.

Union = lazy. It's that simple.