When management is limiting pay raises to 1%, isn't likely that your best people will leave to find another job? Isn't this a "desperate" act on the part of management to make some money and to meet budget? Have senior management pay raises been limited to 1%? I would like to hear from more of the employees.
"One percent is better than the unemployment line."
We have a funny culture regarding pay raises and bonuses in the U.S. They have become entitlements.
Let me see....
I'm hired to do a function, at a certain level of productivity, at an agreed upon pay rate.
So I think I want a raise. Don't get the raise I think I want? Well, I'm going to take my morale and go home.
No one controls my morale, aka, "attitude," but me. If the employer meets the original agreement, and any additional terms of agreement, they have done what they have honored the agreement.
Employees who dwell on what others received, and pout and moan and withhold "morale" are subject to judgement whether they have honored their agreement.
Spoken like a true jack-ass! I hope you can say that when it happens to you. Some of us wonderful BBT employess aren't getting a dime but our benefit costs have gone up so we are taking a pay cut this year. And before you get going on my performance. According to my review I am rated in the upper 10% of BBT employees based on performance.
Union stewards typically received "super seniority," i.e., last person in a category to be laid off. I was in seasonal industry, or night crew while attending college, and the steward's job was offered. I liked the seniority. Two different operations.
Both those operations were incentive based. Piece work.
In the second a couple friends and I hustled (And trust me, Jim. I know what unending hard physical labor is.)and broke open an incentive plan which was rigged like the carrot on a too-long stick. No one was making bonus pay, or they were having it taken away on whims and technicalities.
We saw an opportunity, ran, yes, RAN, all day about 300 per cent, triple wages weekly. In a short time, that turned a 125 person shop on its ear.
Today, 25 years later, (wow, it goes fast...), those people routinely average about 175 to 200% of base wages. 450+/- employees, and the beast of the industry in their region. I'm not taking credit for all that, but I was a catalyst. I also know in time there would have been another catalyst.
If I had been willing to moan and gripe my way through life, I would have taken base pay, sucked up a little overtime, and griped about how unfair it all is.
And I saw a manager routinely, publicly and profanely, bullying and belittling a few weak employees.
"Force or Fraud."
He got gone, and I got promoted, a few times.
I found management to be a more goal-oriented way of life, and liked that much better. Really found it to be more "honest" since the union work routinely had me defending deadbeats. No, not everyone with a grievance is a deadbeat, but unionism sure caters to the clubhouse lawyers.
I'm not a great manager. No one's fault but mine. And I don't deserve that pay for that function. Ergo, I'm a sales guy. I take pride in providing orders to keep people working.
That's all right. And if Fred sells more/better than I do, he should reap the benefit$.
"Do you believe that the companies are really fair and equal in assessing each employee and their individual performances on a fair and equal basis?"
I just don't care, couldn't care less. I do think many use that question only to hold themselves back. I care about results.
I have never believed in socialism, communism, or equality of compensation based on benchmarks such as seniority or job classification. But I do believe in basic decent humane management, with incentives.
Good post Mike. I agree with much of what you said, particularly your point on "choice." We are all at a point of choice every day, hour, minute, & moment. Applies to everything - the job and if we continue to own the stock. I've been told the most significant "vote" is the one done with your feet. If you don't like what you see, leave (sell). I posted on this concept a while back with regard to BBT. I've been leaving for a while now, so I'm voting my convictions. Still hope to see some leadership emerge, but not real hopefull.
As for the salary/fairness/etc. issue - wait for the proxy. It will show what JA thinks of himself and his buds in exec. management vs. the rank and file employees. You will be dealing with fact, not rumor, which is fun, but can lead to serious mistakes if taken as "fact".
And I completely agree with the poster who pointed out that tellers are probably the most important BBT employee to most of us. Think about it and think how long you've had the same teller in the bank window at the branch you use and how you felt "breaking in" a new teller.
Many of you don't get it. This institution is a very difficult place to work and produce. Getting credits approved is arduous chore, making it impossible to "serve" your clients. Been in several banks you would all recognize. Like someone said, I voted with my feet and left - went to another bank and two months into the new year, I have already produced at a "bonus" level over there at the old BB&T. It tries to manage by process and system which is not a fertile environment for production. Best of luck to em. All IMHO of course.
"But seriously, why would one go to a branch any more? There are a lot of other things about a financial institution more important to me than a branch. I can not recall the last time I went to a branch."
I'll tell you who goes to a branch: Old people with large DDA accounts, business owners who have to deposit cash as well as checks. Some of the largest account holders have to visit branchs. Those who never visit a branch are likely small deposit holders who have direct deposit and only use their check cards. When I was in banking, I had a customer who would routinely deposit more than $10 million in checks a month through the local branch. Why, because they didn't want to fire their processors and have payments sent to a lockbox, even though the cost would have been much less than keeping a staff to open envelopes and process payments.
BB&T should be filing their proxy materials soon. It will be interesting to see if senior management got more than 1% increase this year. My prediction is that they all got large salary increases and large bonuses with lots of stock options. Is that fair?
Basic human rights, a la women and minorities, safe work conditions, force and fraud, etc., comprise a whole different topic, and I'll respectfully beg that question.
Assuming basic human rights are addressed:
Why would a "perfect" world offer "equal" treatment?
What other development could be a greater detriment to individual effort?
Why be a production pacesetter if the reward is the same for just showing up?
Are all employees/people the same?
I'm talking as a former union steward, and also member of management, with experience on both sides of the bargaining table.
Lots of moaning and groaning here about wages and bonuses. Lots of knee jerk emotional response to two opinions which I think are critically important to free enterprise, but offend many others:
1. Salary is based on a prior agreement and is based on doing a good job. The entitlement attitude, i.e., "I deserve a bonus," my "reward for doing a good job," gives the employee the right to withhold effort when dissatisfied.
If the prior agreement is honored, integrity of management is intact, in that employee's case, regardless of anyone else's compensation.
Changing/reducing compensation plans or commission rates, or bonus calculations in the middle of a measuring period, are examples of poor ethics. Or might be justified in the worst of times, for company survival.
2. Not happy? Get happy or move on to those greener pastures.
To me, "morale" is an intangible management measurement of a factor in the workplace.
At a personal level, "morale" is constructed of individual blocks called "attitude."
Fact is, IMO, management is responsible for striving to create a great workplace, measuring "morale," and responding to labor market conditions which are one indicator of appropriate compensation packages.
They are responsible to the shareholders to maintain a productive and aggressive staff, to maximize growth, profitability, and share price improvement.
I would submit that overboard "equal" treatment will not enable the corporation to attain those goals.
Employees are responsible for "attitude" they project. Aggressive bad attitude is a cancer. If the burden becomes too great because of perceived inequity in personal pay versus management pay, time to go to an operation where managers work for less.
Or, since it is so easy to prosper running a business(sarcasm), the injured should do what curious did. Start a business. Then it should be easy to honor those heartfelt ethics, treat everyone equally, and control the CEO's pay.
I'm not stipulating that BBT management is flawless in employment practices. I don't know whether the price of the stock is stagnant due to excess fat, or underpayment of employees.
Either way, management is responsible to address the issues holding the stock back.
I just inhabit a "NO WHINING" zone.
"Sorry but inflation, although historically very low, is in fact greater than 1%. Obviously you didn't do too well in Economics 101 (if you even took Economics). And I in fact have made the sacrifices to get the corner office. However I didn't inherit my position through political BS or having the right bloodlines like 90% of corporate management. Instead I started my own company, and my family is now set for the next several generations."
I applaud you for starting your own company. Sincerely. Takes a lot more grit than hanging out at a water cooler, griping about management decisions. Risk/reward, indeed.
This week I will leave my current job, one of two ways: start my own company, or go to work for a large company in the same industry. I've been losing sleep over the decision. But I believe I have two great options.
"And I love how the know nothing corporate management teams need to hire consultants to tell them how to manage their companies. Exactly what is management getting paid for? Listen to stock analysts for ideas and hire someone else to show them how to execute? If management really wanted to get rid of "dead wood" they should take a good look in the mirror. Lots of "featherbedders and dead wood" in the reflection."
Right on the mark.
The Raleigh N&O had a feature on team building today. Drumming was featured. One CEO in Illinois made his managers go white water rafting and rappelling.
To quote you, "Give me a break!"
And, no, I never took economics. But are all economists in agreement on all issues?
How is inflation affecting ME? And if the inflation index (currently aobut 2.5%?)is all encompassing, you should be able to make it fit me without any further information about me.
Which is a good thing, as you will avoid the red line of high RPM boredom.
Make me believe, and I'll fold like a cheap tent. 'Cause I'm rigid in ethics, but flexible in opinion. :)
Interesting quote - "tellers are probably the most important BBT employee to most of us". Certainly tellers are important especially since they are face to face with the customer. But seriously, why would one go to a branch any more? There are a lot of other things about a financial institution more important to me than a branch. I can not recall the last time I went to a branch.
I would rather see the focus on making sure I did not have to go to a branch to do business with BB&T.