Disenchanted
New Member
Yes, we all thought loyalty was dead when the compensation committee instituted pay caps and directly tied pay raises to QPR performance results, but alas, they have dug up loyalty from her grave and killed her a second time, just to make sure she is truly dead. I am not sure even President O’Bummer and his side kick Fraternity Row Joe could have screwed the middle class with such deceit and a big ass smile on their faces.
Just when you thought things were settling back down after the payroll cost control initiative, a.k.a. pay caps pay banding, on the backs of long time, loyal, hard working managers and supervisors, then came “normalization”.
What is normalization you ask? Well according to the HR folks who had to present this initiative with a straight face, it is not the “forced distribution” of QPR results, forced distribution demands a bell curve where you have the majority of employees in the mediocrity range and a minority of strong/exceptional performers as well as a matching minority set in the improvement needed categories. No, this payroll cost control initiative called normalization aims to reduce the number of strong/exceptional performers who would be eligible for the incentive pay that was hyped as part of the payroll caps initiative put into place in early 2012.
So, if the organization feels that the QPR scores across the organization are too high, (above a 1.125 average), they will then take the difference between the actual and 1.125 and subtract the difference from everyone’s QPR score, thus forcing people into lower categories so that we have, are you ready for this, a bell curve of QPR categories, thus reducing the number of employees receiving incentive pay and controlling payroll costs with one fell swoop of the calculator. (Want to guess what appens if the actual average is below 1.125? Surprise! You guessed it, nothing, you can never be moved up, only down.)
So you bust you hump all year and do an exceptional job that is reflected in your QPR results, the compensation committee then comes along and says, oh no, scores are too high, we must "normalize". So everyone who did a great job gets screwed, many who were mediocre get bumped down to a improvement needed category and which results in a zero pay raise as well. All the while the management committee is receiving pay raises in the +10% range even when shareholder value sucks.
(i.e. You earn a 1.26 QPR score which puts you in the strong performer category and eligible for additional incentive pay, but the enterprise wide scores average 1.24, they will take the difference between the 1.24 and 1.125 and subtract that difference from your QPR score, so you now go from a 1.26 to a 1.145 QPR score, thus forcing you into the mediocre category, thereby not being eligible for receiving any incentive pay. So even though you exceeded expectations on the goals that were set and agreed upon by you and your manager, you get screwed in the paycheck. Thank you President O’Bummer, oh sorry, I mean thank you Scott Davis and Dave Abney. My bad, I thought this looked like a redistribution of wealth initiative.)
So it appears after all these years, the management committee has succumbed to the fact that the post office must be a superior run organization, as they are leading this company down the same path as the post office where mediocrity is considered acceptable and strong performance is punished. (12% growth in 14 years? Maybe it's time for a change in senior leadership. Just saying, change can be a good thing.)
Just when you thought things were settling back down after the payroll cost control initiative, a.k.a. pay caps pay banding, on the backs of long time, loyal, hard working managers and supervisors, then came “normalization”.
What is normalization you ask? Well according to the HR folks who had to present this initiative with a straight face, it is not the “forced distribution” of QPR results, forced distribution demands a bell curve where you have the majority of employees in the mediocrity range and a minority of strong/exceptional performers as well as a matching minority set in the improvement needed categories. No, this payroll cost control initiative called normalization aims to reduce the number of strong/exceptional performers who would be eligible for the incentive pay that was hyped as part of the payroll caps initiative put into place in early 2012.
So, if the organization feels that the QPR scores across the organization are too high, (above a 1.125 average), they will then take the difference between the actual and 1.125 and subtract the difference from everyone’s QPR score, thus forcing people into lower categories so that we have, are you ready for this, a bell curve of QPR categories, thus reducing the number of employees receiving incentive pay and controlling payroll costs with one fell swoop of the calculator. (Want to guess what appens if the actual average is below 1.125? Surprise! You guessed it, nothing, you can never be moved up, only down.)
So you bust you hump all year and do an exceptional job that is reflected in your QPR results, the compensation committee then comes along and says, oh no, scores are too high, we must "normalize". So everyone who did a great job gets screwed, many who were mediocre get bumped down to a improvement needed category and which results in a zero pay raise as well. All the while the management committee is receiving pay raises in the +10% range even when shareholder value sucks.
(i.e. You earn a 1.26 QPR score which puts you in the strong performer category and eligible for additional incentive pay, but the enterprise wide scores average 1.24, they will take the difference between the 1.24 and 1.125 and subtract that difference from your QPR score, so you now go from a 1.26 to a 1.145 QPR score, thus forcing you into the mediocre category, thereby not being eligible for receiving any incentive pay. So even though you exceeded expectations on the goals that were set and agreed upon by you and your manager, you get screwed in the paycheck. Thank you President O’Bummer, oh sorry, I mean thank you Scott Davis and Dave Abney. My bad, I thought this looked like a redistribution of wealth initiative.)
So it appears after all these years, the management committee has succumbed to the fact that the post office must be a superior run organization, as they are leading this company down the same path as the post office where mediocrity is considered acceptable and strong performance is punished. (12% growth in 14 years? Maybe it's time for a change in senior leadership. Just saying, change can be a good thing.)