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.
"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.
It's likely that many of those employees complaining here were told this to begin with. But all they heard was "1%". Next we will hear about how much harder the job is when you don't replace someone lost to attrition.
And for the record, I got it right in 7314. Do I get any extra credit? ;-)
Southern, I've patiently thumbed through all the bitchin' and moanin' about pay hoping someone would figure out what a corporate X% pay increase was. Congratulations on hitting the bullseye! Maybe we can move on now.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Why would a "perfect" world offer "equal" treatment?
In a perfect world all employees would start out on an equal footing. There would be no salary raises and promotions based on the good old boy network, who you know, friendship, blood lines,and all the other things that get in the way of being rewarded for your individual efforts. Each would be rewarded as each's efforts contribute to the well being of the whole. 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?
At some point you must have felt very different from what you are posting.You mentioned being a union stewart at one time. All the union contracts I've seen reward each person in the same unit as all others are rewarded. There would be no bonus etc. for individual performance. So did you think that all people performed the same regardless of effort?
I thought the basic reason for unions were that the employees did not trust management to do what was right and give them the raises and benefits that the employees feel they deserved.
Just my opinion.
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.