Anyone know what to expect regarding mgmt raises?

[Mapp]

P-Man,
I appreciate that you are usually right on the money with your facts! You offer an insight into what many of us do not see or understand. You brought up a point that I think is a serious problem at UPS....please let me know if I'm wrong. I've had a couple of sups in the past decade (very, very good sups who got thing done) who seemed to have been given minimal raises due to the fact they were at top scale already for their job catagory. I think they mentioned something about a "bell curve" (it was a while ago so I'm not sure). The point is should an effective supervisor be bastardized for his/her success because of where they are at on the pay scale and given a minimual raise? Would this not lead to a dis-interested, ineffective sup?

A

Almost anytime someone isn't given a raise UPS is effectively taking money from them due to inflation, its bull****. Along with the lack of the 401k match I'm sure alot of people are losing out on a decent amount of pay and a far higher percentage of overall pay than those fatcats running our company in the ground due to their own greed.

 

[RoyalFlush]

Nope, each department (Div Mgr group) was given an amount of money to give for raises. If the total monthly salary for a group is $100,000 Let's just assume 20 people each making $5,000 per month to make the math easy in the example. Then the department has $2500 in raises to give out for those 20 people or $125 per month, per person. So if what Red Rose Tea heard was correct, that's what each person would get. However, what can and will happen is the higher performers can and will get more then this average. But it means that the low performers will get less then this average. So one person may get 175 or 3.5% while another person gets 75 or 1.5%.

There is a major flaw in the system. A division performing at the very bottom gets 2.5 percent to distribute. Each member of the division get an average of 2.5 percent. The top division in the entire company gets 2.5 percent. Each member of the bottom division gets the same thing as the top division. A few lucky soles end up in a poor performing division and look like superstars while an unlucky sole in a top performing division gets shafted. I expected a change this year, but it's pretty much business the same as usual.

 

[tieguy]

Browniehound posted possibly the best advice on this thread. I always brought the annual national inflation rates with me to my annual salary "review". My manager was usually blown away that someone was educated enough to follow this. I always received an above expectations rating, but my raise only surpassed inflation 2 times: 2002 and 2003. Last year when no raise was given and inflation was over 3 I read the writing on the wall and left the company. I got a 25K a year raise and work in much better conditions..

In case you are wondering, here's inflation broken down by year and month since 2000:

YEAR
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
AVE
2010 2.63% 2.14% 2.31% 2009 0.03% 0.24% -0.38% -0.74% -1.28% -1.43% -2.10% -1.48% -1.29% -0.18% 1.84% 2.72% -0.34% 2008 4.28% 4.03% 3.98% 3.94% 4.18% 5.02% 5.60% 5.37% 4.94% 3.66% 1.07% 0.09% 3.85% 2007 2.08% 2.42% 2.78% 2.57% 2.69% 2.69% 2.36% 1.97% 2.76% 3.54% 4.31% 4.08% 2.85% 2006 3.99% 3.60% 3.36% 3.55% 4.17% 4.32% 4.15% 3.82% 2.06% 1.31% 1.97% 2.54% 3.24% 2005 2.97% 3.01% 3.15% 3.51% 2.80% 2.53% 3.17% 3.64% 4.69% 4.35% 3.46% 3.42% 3.39% 2004 1.93% 1.69% 1.74% 2.29% 3.05% 3.27% 2.99% 2.65% 2.54% 3.19% 3.52% 3.26% 2.68% 2003 2.60% 2.98% 3.02% 2.22% 2.06% 2.11% 2.11% 2.16% 2.32% 2.04% 1.77% 1.88% 2.27% 2002 1.14% 1.14% 1.48% 1.64% 1.18% 1.07% 1.46% 1.80% 1.51% 2.03% 2.20% 2.38% 1.59% 2001 3.73% 3.53% 2.92% 3.27% 3.62% 3.25% 2.72% 2.72% 2.65% 2.13% 1.90% 1.55% 2.83% 2000


http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historicalinflation.aspx

If you went into my salary review and presented the inflation rates for the last ten years to me at that time I would not be blown away. I would wonder about your sanity.

Has your above average ratings and your presentation of irrelevant financial information gotten you promoted quickly? If not then your tactics may be flawed.

 

[tieguy]

There is a major flaw in the system. A division performing at the very bottom gets 2.5 percent to distribute. Each member of the division get an average of 2.5 percent. The top division in the entire company gets 2.5 percent. Each member of the bottom division gets the same thing as the top division. A few lucky soles end up in a poor performing division and look like superstars while an unlucky sole in a top performing division gets shafted. I expected a change this year, but it's pretty much business the same as usual.

anyone see the qip results being used this year?

 

[RoyalFlush]

anyone see the qip results being used this year?

Absolutely. Strong performer = 2.6 % (actually 2.56 rounded up). Not above or close to the max in the range. It really makes it worth the extra effort. The people in my group got between 2.4 and 2.6 %. Half were rated strong performer and half were rated acceptable. Scores ranged from .9 to 1.3.

 

[randomUPSISer]

anyone see the qip results being used this year?

Sure did. Raises were tired to it and matched the bell curve the corporate communication said each department would have to match with. Our raises ranged from <1% to about 3.5% depending on who you talked to. Those ranges also matched pretty close to where they fell on the QPR.

Funny thing about this forced bell curve thing is that in overperforming groups (there are plenty of those within the company specifically put together because their area of responsibility is HIGHLY important) people are going to get shafted even though they are really good. In mediocre groups (where what they are doing isnt all that important) the high performers (though still mediocre company wide) will get great rewards.

This leads in the long run to getting what you reward. In this case, its going to lead to every group within UPS being "average". Good people who get the shaft within good groups will leave. No groups will be better than other groups. Thats problematic to me since some projects are far more important than others.

 

[hitman15]

If you went into my salary review and presented the inflation rates for the last ten years to me at that time I would not be blown away. I would wonder about your sanity.

Has your above average ratings and your presentation of irrelevant financial information gotten you promoted quickly? If not then your tactics may be flawed.

You don't see the relevance of inflation rates to COL raises (that's basically what they are). Besides I said I took the past year's rates with me as an afterthought to the discussion. I was never promoted, so I left the company and received my promotion myself since UPS wouldn't do it. There are several reasons this didn't happen, but I'm not discussing them here. It involves a lot of nepotism and politics.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

...but has nothing to do with job performance?

 

[RoyalFlush]

Sure did. Raises were tired to it and matched the bell curve the corporate communication said each department would have to match with. Our raises ranged from <1% to about 3.5% depending on who you talked to. Those ranges also matched pretty close to where they fell on the QPR.

Funny thing about this forced bell curve thing is that in overperforming groups (there are plenty of those within the company specifically put together because their area of responsibility is HIGHLY important) people are going to get shafted even though they are really good. In mediocre groups (where what they are doing isnt all that important) the high performers (though still mediocre company wide) will get great rewards.

This leads in the long run to getting what you reward. In this case, its going to lead to every group within UPS being "average". Good people who get the shaft within good groups will leave. No groups will be better than other groups. Thats problematic to me since some projects are far more important than others.

Thats what I said.

 

[Dis-organized Labor]

anyone see the qip results being used this year?

Above on every Measure thanks to us in Management!

 

[RoyalFlush]

Above on every Measure thanks to us in Management!

I think he meant: Has anyone seen the QPR results being used to determine pay raises this year?

Thanks for the tip anyway. I just looked up the MIP business elements. We are on or above plan for every element! Why do I feel like were going to still get stiffed on MIP??????????

 

[Red Rose Tea]

Nope, each department (Div Mgr group) was given an amount of money to give for raises. If the total monthly salary for a group is $100,000 Let's just assume 20 people each making $5,000 per month to make the math easy in the example. Then the department has $2500 in raises to give out for those 20 people or $125 per month, per person. So if what Red Rose Tea heard was correct, that's what each person would get. However, what can and will happen is the higher performers can and will get more then this average. But it means that the low performers will get less then this average. So one person may get 175 or 3.5% while another person gets 75 or 1.5%.

Nope, know as a fact 2.5 % regardless of QPR. I know each division gets so much $$$ for raises. The higher performer should receive a larger %.
I received Acceptable Performer rating - my colleagues received Development Needed RATING - WE ALL received 2.5%

 

[randomUPSISer]

Nope, know as a fact 2.5 % regardless of QPR. I know each division gets so much $$$ for raises. The higher performer should receive a larger %.
I received Acceptable Performer rating - my colleagues received Development Needed RATING - WE ALL received 2.5%

I think this depended entirely on your local management. I know some groups who got the same thing as you. Our group I know for a fact wasnt all the same.

 

[randomUPSISer]

I think he meant: Has anyone seen the QPR results being used to determine pay raises this year?

Thanks for the tip anyway. I just looked up the MIP business elements. We are on or above plan for every element! Why do I feel like were going to still get stiffed on MIP??????????

You would be niave to think anything but we will be stiffed on MIP. I expect they will come up with some BS about how "future earnings arent expected to be good so we arent going to reward MIP". Perhaps even something as rediculous as sometime mid year we will hear "the MIP elements were too easily attainable so they have been revised to match the current climate"

I suppose the worst part is, even if there is a good MIP, we are all still behind on earnings considering the terrible raises the last 2 years, lack of 401k, and drastically worst health coverage.

 

[pretzel_man]

P-Man,
I appreciate that you are usually right on the money with your facts! You offer an insight into what many of us do not see or understand. You brought up a point that I think is a serious problem at UPS....please let me know if I'm wrong. I've had a couple of sups in the past decade (very, very good sups who got thing done) who seemed to have been given minimal raises due to the fact they were at top scale already for their job catagory. I think they mentioned something about a "bell curve" (it was a while ago so I'm not sure). The point is should an effective supervisor be bastardized for his/her success because of where they are at on the pay scale and given a minimual raise? Would this not lead to a dis-interested, ineffective sup?

Numbers,

Sorry for taking a while to answer...

First let me tell you how the system works.... Each job has a mid point of pay. Think of this as the 100% point. Generally, the bottom of the pay grade is at about 90% of the midpoint. If any supervisor falls below that bottom end, they are immediately given an equity raise to get to that bottom.

At the other end is the upper limit of the pay scale. Its generally at 120% of the midpoint. Once you get to that point, your raises are nearly eliminated.

Genererally, when giving out raises, a manager should give a higher % raise to a person below the midpoint as compared to a person above the midpoint. Here is the logic I've used for this. Lets say that two supervisor do an equally good job. The same dollar raise is a larger % to the lower paid employee vs. the higher paid employee. Therefore, higher paid employees should generally get lower % increases.

Does this lead to disinterested supervisors? I have not seen that if its done right. You end up with the best supervisors being paid the most and poorer ones paid the least.

The biggest problem I've seen with raises is where poor managers are afraid to give out the $25 raise. If you give everyone the average, I think this leads to more disinterest. I give out low raises to poor performers so extra can be given to better supervisors.

P-Man

 

[RoyalFlush]

Numbers,

Sorry for taking a while to answer...

First let me tell you how the system works.... Each job has a mid point of pay. Think of this as the 100% point. Generally, the bottom of the pay grade is at about 90% of the midpoint. If any supervisor falls below that bottom end, they are immediately given an equity raise to get to that bottom.

At the other end is the upper limit of the pay scale. Its generally at 120% of the midpoint. Once you get to that point, your raises are nearly eliminated.

Genererally, when giving out raises, a manager should give a higher % raise to a person below the midpoint as compared to a person above the midpoint. Here is the logic I've used for this. Lets say that two supervisor do an equally good job. The same dollar raise is a larger % to the lower paid employee vs. the higher paid employee. Therefore, higher paid employees should generally get lower % increases.

Does this lead to disinterested supervisors? I have not seen that if its done right. You end up with the best supervisors being paid the most and poorer ones paid the least.

The biggest problem I've seen with raises is where poor managers are afraid to give out the $25 raise. If you give everyone the average, I think this leads to more disinterest. I give out low raises to poor performers so extra can be given to better supervisors.

P-Man

Look at the bright side. One day we'll all be at the 120% range because the management compensation for the lower level managers and supervisors is going to continue to fall as it has for the past several years.

My experience has been that everyone gets something very close to the average percentage. I believe one of the main reasons they don't just make it a flat percentage across the board is so they can dangle the "if you do a good job, you'll get more" carrot.

For the past year or two there has been a lot of hype about how raises will be tied more to performance. The "QPR uploads into MIS on xxxx date" line was to intentionally lead us to believe that the raise would be tied directly to performance. The reality is that it's the exact same system (MIS) and the division manager has the exact same ability to divvy up the lump sum as they had before. The amount available increases is still based upon the predetermined percentage across the board.

 

[tieguy]

Look at the bright side. One day we'll all be at the 120% range because the management compensation for the lower level managers and supervisors is going to continue to fall as it has for the past several years.

My experience has been that everyone gets something very close to the average percentage. I believe one of the main reasons they don't just make it a flat percentage across the board is so they can dangle the "if you do a good job, you'll get more" carrot.

For the past year or two there has been a lot of hype about how raises will be tied more to performance. The "QPR uploads into MIS on xxxx date" line was to intentionally lead us to believe that the raise would be tied directly to performance. The reality is that it's the exact same system (MIS) and the division manager has the exact same ability to divvy up the lump sum as they had before. The amount available increases is still based upon the predetermined percentage across the board.

The problem with the concept is the measurement again is flawed. your qpr generally has some elements specific to your responsibility but many that are team numbers or numbers completely out of your control. As such until we develop a measurement that totally isolates your performance the concept of basing raises on it is flawed.

I have a full time supervisor that I think does a terrific job. She is not particularly creative may not advance to a manager but she is very good at what she does and she is hard as nails. She will ride 6 days a week work all kinds of crazy hours and do whatever the team needs. I couldn't get her the raise she deserved because someone at a higher level decided she did not do enough to hold her people accountable. Shouldn't I be the person to decide that she did not do enough? Shouldn't I be the person to determine her value to the team? Instead the raises were decided at the divison and ops manager level and handed to me when it became time to review them.

its kind of funny. As a manger I'm allowed to hold people accoutable for the negatives and held accountable for the failures of the team but I'm blocked from having any imput when it comes time to reward the team for their contributions.

I have seen and met many fine people at the corporate level who believe in changing the ways we treat our people. Unfortunately they are not strong enough to dictate policy yet. Maybe before I retire.

 

[pretzel_man]

The problem with the concept is the measurement again is flawed. your qpr generally has some elements specific to your responsibility but many that are team numbers or numbers completely out of your control. As such until we develop a measurement that totally isolates your performance the concept of basing raises on it is flawed.

I have a full time supervisor that I think does a terrific job. She is not particularly creative may not advance to a manager but she is very good at what she does and she is hard as nails. She will ride 6 days a week work all kinds of crazy hours and do whatever the team needs. I couldn't get her the raise she deserved because someone at a higher level decided she did not do enough to hold her people accountable. Shouldn't I be the person to decide that she did not do enough? Shouldn't I be the person to determine her value to the team? Instead the raises were decided at the divison and ops manager level and handed to me when it became time to review them.

its kind of funny. As a manger I'm allowed to hold people accoutable for the negatives and held accountable for the failures of the team but I'm blocked from having any imput when it comes time to reward the team for their contributions.

I have seen and met many fine people at the corporate level who believe in changing the ways we treat our people. Unfortunately they are not strong enough to dictate policy yet. Maybe before I retire.

Tie,

With the new process, only the immediate manager's evaluation goes into the score. The team numbers out of your control do not go into the final score.

I'm happy with the process. I think the website can make my life a little easier so that I don't have to use spreadsheets to figure things out before I key them.

At least for me, I had total control of their QPR scores and raises. Of course, being limited to 2.5% overall was challenging. I did my best to equitably give out the raises. Some people got very little, some got a lot.

P-Man

 

[tieguy]

Tie,

With the new process, only the immediate manager's evaluation goes into the score. The team numbers out of your control do not go into the final score.

I'm happy with the process. I think the website can make my life a little easier so that I don't have to use spreadsheets to figure things out before I key them.

At least for me, I had total control of their QPR scores and raises. Of course, being limited to 2.5% overall was challenging. I did my best to equitably give out the raises. Some people got very little, some got a lot.

P-Man

depends on your boss. I've had that input in the past.

 

[Red Rose Tea]

Tie,

With the new process, only the immediate manager's evaluation goes into the score. The team numbers out of your control do not go into the final score.

I'm happy with the process. I think the website can make my life a little easier so that I don't have to use spreadsheets to figure things out before I key them.

At least for me, I had total control of their QPR scores and raises. Of course, being limited to 2.5% overall was challenging. I did my best to equitably give out the raises. Some people got very little, some got a lot.

P-Man

P-man
wish you were my manager!!! In my division, it was 2.5% across the board, regardless of performance, regardless of pay scale.
I think it is a slap in the face, to those who out perform the poorest performers.

But as they say, it is what it is. And I am just thankful that I have job with benefits.