Dona Ana County pay ranges from $7.50...

Dona Ana County pay ranges from $7.50 to $64.44 an hour

There are 76 comments on the Las Cruces Sun-News story from Apr 17, 2010, titled Dona Ana County pay ranges from $7.50 to $64.44 an hour. In it, Las Cruces Sun-News reports that:

Ray Ramirez, 32, a county grounds maintenance worker, trims landscape vegetation Tuesday at the County Government Center.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Las Cruces Sun-News.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“Irony, metaphor, film @ eleven”

Since: Feb 08

Old Mesilla/New Las Cruces

#64 Apr 21, 2010
lcnative wrote:
I didn't see any employees with the City that have the last name Sierra. Is it possible that the Dr. you are referring to works for a Dr.'s office rather than a government one? The Dr. Silvia Sierra you mention is not the same one that works for Dona Ana County, sorry.
<quoted text>
If one reads the news article on this particular
thread, it lists a Silvia Sierra

Job Description Name Ascending Department Annual Salary
DIRECTOR, HEALTH & HUMAN SERV SIERRA CLARA SILVIA Community Services-Admin.$83990.4

I'm not trying to cause trouble for this woman. I am responding to
information in the newspaper, and that I know of a woman with the same uncommon name as more than coincidental, if not odd.

If she has a full time job with the city earning nearly $84k
and a private practice, also assumed full time, earning what doctors
earn in her occupation,

How about we find out together if there are two women in the same occupation, in the same small town, with the same name, Silvia Sierra.

wouldn't you wan to know too? Silvia Sierra is not a household name
in "doctordom".

“Irony, metaphor, film @ eleven”

Since: Feb 08

Old Mesilla/New Las Cruces

#65 Apr 21, 2010
Job Description NameAscending Department Annual Salary
DIRECTOR, HEALTH & HUMAN SERV SIERRA CLARA SILVIA Community Services-Admin. 83990.4

This information above is copy and pasted directly from
the link regarding city employees and their name, position ( job description), and their annual salary as in THIS topic in front of you at this very moment.

One is a doctor, one is the director.

Are they the same person?
lcnative

Orient, OH

#66 Apr 21, 2010
According to the phone book (2010-2011) there is a Silvia M Sierra, MD at 4141 Camino Coyote, LC NM 88011. The Silvia Sierra that is employed as the Director for Health and Human Services at Dona Ana County is Silvia C. Sierra. According to the Assessor's Dept she and her husband Rene live on Watson Pl here in Las Cruces 88005. I would say there are 2 very different Silvia Sierra's - unless she has multiple personalities.
stopTAGGING ourWALLS wrote:
Job Description NameAscending Department Annual Salary
DIRECTOR, HEALTH & HUMAN SERV SIERRA CLARA SILVIA Community Services-Admin. 83990.4
This information above is copy and pasted directly from
the link regarding city employees and their name, position ( job description), and their annual salary as in THIS topic in front of you at this very moment.
One is a doctor, one is the director.
Are they the same person?
Realist

Las Cruces, NM

#67 Mar 20, 2011
Concealed Identity wrote:
<quoted text> You are obviously one of the double dippers. Perhaps a retired city employee, now working for the feds thus the U.S. name under your "hey boy". If you were that great at your city job, you should have stayed on and kept your medical benefits for you and your family. But they(the city) figured out your little game, and they werent getting what they paid for so you bailed.
Perspective on "double dipper": Brother-in-law went to sheriff academy wen he was 20, worked in sheriff (not Dona Ana County) for 25 year. "Retired" are 45, but can't "draw" all benefits until 55; so now he works for another government agency - plans to leave at 55 - 60.

I don't consider that double dipping; if you don't have access tot eh benefits or they are so "reduced" to draw at a lower age, you have to do something.
Realist

Las Cruces, NM

#68 Mar 20, 2011
My bigger concerns with the article:
1) think that many lower wage earners should have wage growth to a slightly higher level (10-15%) based on performance - if they are working hard and doing well, pay them better.
2) Health care and pension cost to us the tax payer are way out of line with private industry and needs to be addressed in steps. 100% for single health care and 75% for family - I pay ~40% and employer pays 60$(good fortune 100 employer and still leader in my chosen industry)
3) How often are position needs, skills required, etc reviewed to ensure that the personnel and skills shift with the changes in demand, technology, etc.

I could go on, but the basic is - pay for performance and give growth opportunity based on performance; make sure staffing skills and needs are review against demands; start aligning pension and benefit (and "perks") with industry (private) and real world needs. Don't necessarily eliminate the "defined pension" benefit, but make it more realistic.

Now we get some insight to why our property taxes continue to rise, while the economy and housing have decreased.
paul

Santa Fe, NM

#69 Mar 20, 2011
The only reason the pay is 7.50/hr is because it is Federal Law.
this

Albuquerque, NM

#70 Mar 20, 2011
Realist wrote:
My bigger concerns with the article:
1) think that many lower wage earners should have wage growth to a slightly higher level (10-15%) based on performance - if they are working hard and doing well, pay them better.
2) Health care and pension cost to us the tax payer are way out of line with private industry and needs to be addressed in steps. 100% for single health care and 75% for family - I pay ~40% and employer pays 60$(good fortune 100 employer and still leader in my chosen industry)
3) How often are position needs, skills required, etc reviewed to ensure that the personnel and skills shift with the changes in demand, technology, etc.
I could go on, but the basic is - pay for performance and give growth opportunity based on performance; make sure staffing skills and needs are review against demands; start aligning pension and benefit (and "perks") with industry (private) and real world needs. Don't necessarily eliminate the "defined pension" benefit, but make it more realistic.
Now we get some insight to why our property taxes continue to rise, while the economy and housing have decreased.
We have some of the lowest property taxes in the country. Part of that is having a state income tax but the other part is that we minimal services compared to other parts of the country. As you see from soundoff continually, there are all kinds of laws/regulations/public works complaints from people that move here from some parts of the country.

It only seems high to those of who have lived here long enough to remember what it was like before Las Cruces became popular and really started to grow. They were ridiculous back then (though I loved paying $280/year on a 3 bedroom in a decent area) but as even our rudimentary level of services have gone up so has the price to fund them.
lcnative

United States

#71 Mar 20, 2011
stopTAGGING ourWALLS wrote:
Job Description NameAscending Department Annual Salary
DIRECTOR, HEALTH & HUMAN SERV SIERRA CLARA SILVIA Community Services-Admin. 83990.4
This information above is copy and pasted directly from
the link regarding city employees and their name, position ( job description), and their annual salary as in THIS topic in front of you at this very moment.
One is a doctor, one is the director.
Are they the same person?
So why don't you get up off your big fat behind and drive your Lincoln out to the Dona Ana County complex and confront this individual? Find out for youself, lazy wimp.

You are always so racist with your comments and hide behind your computer. If you're as smart as you think you are, run for office and try to make real change.

Otherwise keep your fat fingers to yourself and stop whining about petty facts and ignorant points. You seem very juvenile, read like you have been abused and are largely an introvert. In other words, you're the perfect candidate to be either a serial killer or a gun nut.
Bill

Albuquerque, NM

#72 Mar 20, 2011
LC Today wrote:
$64.44 per hour? Why is it that the person who actually does the least work and may not even be worth it, makes the most money?
If $64 an hour is "big money," then you probably haven't been around much. I've worked with technical types who charge 200+ an hour and nobody blinks. The better educated you are, the higher up the food chain you go, and the fewer the people who know how to do your job, then pay goes up.
this

Albuquerque, NM

#73 Mar 20, 2011
As a college grad with some experience in a fast growing industry the only thing that brought me to the county was the retirement and medical bennies. It wasn't the pay, I made roughly $50K a year (which isn't bad all things considered but I worked my tail off for a lot of years for it) but I could have made $80 with offers I had in hand. The bennies were better with the county though, particularly the retirement and I made note of that as a young man and included it in my plan towards retirement and that plus the cost of moving made the county a good option. With benefits that matched the private sector offer I would be in San Diego with the private sector in a heartbeat.

My point isn't that all jobs in the county are like that but a whole lot of them are. You want sharp, educated, ambitious people with integrity who are going to design, decide and implement many of the things you use in your day to day live without thinking about them - you want this person you have to pay them somehow.

Back in the day the decisions were made to pay us retirement/bennies that was a better deal to the state than flat out matching salaries of the private sector (I have to imagine?). Now that the state runs out of money (because no fault of local employees) and the outrage over our benefits commences. Most of my career my friends and colleagues in the private sector laughed at my job through most of my career and their 401K's were wiped a few years ago I still have the promise of my pension. Only now there is talk of trying to take away the benefits THEY didn't figure were that important back then and that I've counted on my whole life.
this

Albuquerque, NM

#74 Mar 20, 2011
I meant with "benefits that matched the public sector" in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
Jeanne

Findlay, OH

#75 Mar 21, 2011
An interesting list of county employees...it looks as though family reunions could easily take place in the lunchroom. Nepotism is alive and well. Count is among your benefits when considering salaries and the "sacrifices" made to serve the public.
Mrs Doutbfire

Las Cruces, NM

#76 Mar 21, 2011
Well everyone, I hate to have to piss in your cornflakes this morning, but it's common knowledge that the fat-cats at the top ALWAYS get paid the most and do the least work. That's the way it's always been, and it won't change. They rarely even work 40 hours a week in most of these places too, they're usually off more than they're working. That's part of their "perks." That's America.
Shopper

Organ, NM

#77 Mar 21, 2011
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
If $64 an hour is "big money," then you probably haven't been around much. I've worked with technical types who charge 200+ an hour and nobody blinks. The better educated you are, the higher up the food chain you go, and the fewer the people who know how to do your job, then pay goes up.
Maybe now people will quit being shocked by the "average" gov't employee salary of $120,000. Trust me-- it's not the average employee. It's the average salary, and take into consideration that the pres, vice pres, senators & congressmen are all gov't employees. Us worker-bees don't make anywhere NEAR that much. Quite a bit less than 1/2 that for the most part.
Jane Doe

Las Cruces, NM

#78 Mar 21, 2011
Shopper wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe now people will quit being shocked by the "average" gov't employee salary of $120,000. Trust me-- it's not the average employee. It's the average salary, and take into consideration that the pres, vice pres, senators & congressmen are all gov't employees. Us worker-bees don't make anywhere NEAR that much. Quite a bit less than 1/2 that for the most part.
You need to remember that some of these government workers have the higher educations i.e. Master's and PhD and that's why they do have the higher salaries. Many a time I hear these blue collar workers groaning about the low pay they receive and stating that the white collar workers earn more and not entitled to it. Why is that at having a higher education is looked down upon by these blue collar workers?
hunkie boy

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#79 Mar 21, 2011
These salaries are low compared to the NMSU head coaches, around $400k a year!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hatch Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News E. Shirley Baca takes position with New Mexico ... (Jul '09) Oct 11 me from new mexico 3
News Advocates call for passage of 'clean' immigrati... Oct 5 spytheweb 1
News Telles verdict expected today (May '08) Oct 1 son 59
lcpd no confidence vote Sep 19 Bloodonhishands 3
News Convicted stalker running for Pearce's seat as ... Sep '17 Marie 6
News DEA conducts raid at Phat Glass in Las Cruces Sep '17 grateful for DEA ... 1
News Burn Lake sexual activities targeted by authori... (Sep '10) Sep '17 Jimmy Aid 145

Hatch Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hatch Mortgages