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.
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.
"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.
"There is no money/earnings b/c the bottom 30% of producers are not producing."
So, JA should clean a little house, give 10-15% of their $$$ to the lead dogs, and report the rest as improved results through efficiencies.
And give himself a few options as a "reward for doing a good job."
"Management continues to reward itself with ridiculous compensation packages and cuts employee compensation (yes a 1% increase is a cut with inflation higher than 1%) and all is well?"
Management wasn't the topic. But, if you want the executive pay, make the sacrifices that get you to the corner office. I mean, if it is that easy, we all should be doing it.
And I doubt that inflation exceeds 1%.
"You probably think employees in India working for less than 1 dollar an hour are overpaid."
There is an irrelavant aerobic conclusion jump. But they may be, based upon skills and local conditions.
"Or, even better, perhaps BBT would be better served by outsourcing all possible jobs overseas."
Golly Ned. Interesting how a little philosophizing about wages and deadwood shakes some people. Guess I hit a little too close to home.
Recently met a feller who independently consults companies on cost reduction. I.e., he identifies featherbedders and dead wood. You know, like Wally from Dilbert.
He has built a reputation for accurate insights and CEO's swing the ax on his say so, without a lot of questioning. Real pleasant feller. But he knows the difference between fishin' and cuttin' bait, let me tell you.
Says he has a lifetime of work ahead of him.
"Give me a break!"
That's the problem with the U.S. work force today. Always got a handout looking for a freebie...!
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.
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.
I agree with you. After spending a number of years in banking, I realized that I had to make my own "luck" rather than rely on my "superior's" relocation or retirement and thus started my own company. Those posting about producer vs. non-producer really have no idea what they are talking about. Some positions pay for themselves and then some because they retain customers. Example: Tellers. Many elements of a successful business have to deal with intangibles, which these so called "producers" have no clue about. If an employee does not receive a raise, in essence, you have lowered his earning power because of the rate of inflation. Maybe Wilson NC does not experience a dramatic increase in the cost of living but other areas of the country such as Wash. DC metro do. Just look at single family real estate appreciation over the last 5 years.
"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. :)
I am not an insider, but from talking with a friend who works for BB&T in Winston-Salem, I understand that the Salary policy for 2004 is that total payroll can only increase 1%. This would take into account any attrition or employee releases. For instance if ten people all earned the same and one of them left, the manager of the department could comply with the 1% policy by giving each of the remaining employees 12% raises, or give the top 1/3 25% raises and the remainder 5.8% raises. It certainly seems to me that this line of thinking is an excellent way to trim the fat while avoiding the massive RIFs that I understand management wants to avoid.
Does Mike or anyone else on this board actually think that all employees are treated equally? In a perfect world this might happen, but not in the real world we all are living in.
There are good hard working producing employees that get the short end of the stick every day for a variety of reasons that they have no control over. Good example is the fact that more than a simple majority of the employees in banks are women, but check and find how many women are above branch managers in any of the top 20 or so banks.
Ask your wife if you are married if she feels that women are only qualified for the lower level jobs? Who do you think trains the men who move up?
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.