Loyality is Killed for a Second Time, as You Just Can't be Too Careful...

[Disenchanted]

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.)

 

[Catatonic]

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.)

You seem a bit disenchanted.

UPS has been going down this path for at least 15 years.
I remember observing back in the 90's that UPS was becoming more and more like a Socialist government.
The lack of individual recognition through pay increases (unless you were promoted) and the concept of centralized top down control and decision making.
I remember one particular discussion of this in my annual pay review in 1999 - I think George (my boss at the time) thought I was a bit looney.

 

[beentheredonethat]

Disenchanted.. You have it pretty good. I've been forced to change my QPR goal in February for the prior year, so I went on some elements from beating goal, to falling short of the "enhanced goal". I asked for a review on critical skills for the current QPR, my new boss for this year, basically said there is no such thing as exceptional performance. I asked, if it doesn't exist, why is it listed as an option in the critical skill review? I am in a subset of sales and they give awards to the top 3% called Gold level World of Champions. I'm a gold level WOC (aka top 3%), yet I'm not exceptional. I'll probably get an avg raise this year. Makes you really want to do more. I'm learning though, I worked less this past year then the year before which was less then the year before that. Next year will be less still. Why bust my butt, work tons of hours for "industry avg rate". If UPS wants industry avg pay, they'll get industry avg hours from me and industry avg effort. I'll still be a top performer due to my nature, but I won't go for top 3%, why bother?

 

[Dragon]

Like I said in a earlier post...you are not getting any more money in a pay raise then you have in the past.

You can be exceptional..outstanding..above the rest..but you will never get more money then the boss has to spread around.

 

[toonertoo]

Im so glad I got out of mgmt. Six yrs as I pt sup, pretty good pay, but I saw the ball rolling. I had to get out.

 

[Mapp]

Apathy as an attitude seems like a good solution since they are apathetic about us.

 

[Catatonic]

Apathy as an attitude seems like a good solution since they are apathetic about us.

I think this could be a definition in the context in which you used it:
Lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal

I have not seen apathy myself.
I see people who prioritize other aspects of their life more so than the "old-timer" UPSers did. We gave up our life Monday - Friday and for many a part of their weekend.
I think this is a societal change in America and it is also the reduction in total compensation, especially when UPS Stock growth and stock stability and security are considered.

UPS use to be a "paternal" company that took care of it's employees from cradle to grave.
UPS was one of the last and HR has specifically stated that UPS "ain't your daddy anymore."

It is unrealistic to think that a person who started with UPS in 2000 to have the same dedication and loyalty to the company as an employee that started in 1970.
Their relationship and dedication to UPS is different but not due to apathy. It's just a different situation with different expectations and rewards on each side of the equation.
Some of the old-timers still blindly cling to outdated values and expectations but they will be gone before too long and even more change will take place.
Those outdated values and expectations include taking care of a UPSer in retirement.

I am personally concerned if and when that time comes because their replacements probably will not care about retirees as much either.
Hopefully this is a bit too much "doom and gloom" on my part ... the changing of the guard could be more positive and balanced.

 

[SignificantOwner]

Apathy as an attitude seems like a good solution since they are apathetic about us.

It's worse than apathy right now. I'm seeing longer term management sticking it out but cutting back on hours and effort. At the same time they're advising younger talented individuals to find something else when asked for advice. I don't know if this is widespread but it's how it is in my area. But whatever, I'm just going to keep doing a good job and enjoying the people I work with. Atlanta owns this cluster.

 

[COH_IE]

when are they "announcing" this?

 

[pretzel_man]

I mentioned that a new dumb idea was coming, and this is it....

"Normalization" is a stupid, hairbrained, and misguided idea that HR came up with. But, its not as damaging as presented.

First, it may not occur. It will depend on whether the QPR scores are deemed to be out of line or not. This is a follow up to a change they made last year for how raises are budgeted.

Last year, raise budgets were based on QPR scores. How that worked was not communicated ahead of time (maybe purposely). That meant that groups that were tougher in rating got less raises and those that were easier raters got more.

It appears that they want to first see how the QPR scores come out. If they are out of line they will adjust for the purpose of raises. All this will end up doing is equalizing the raises for each district.

In essence, I'm sure there is a target raise %. If QPR's don't equal that target raise %, they will adjust to make it fit.

I don't think anyone can argue that budgeting raises is a problem, but this just seems like a very stupid way to do so.

 

[Catatonic]

I mentioned that a new dumb idea was coming, and this is it....

"Normalization" is a stupid, hairbrained, and misguided idea that HR came up with. But, its not as damaging as presented.

First, it may not occur. It will depend on whether the QPR scores are deemed to be out of line or not. This is a follow up to a change they made last year for how raises are budgeted.

Last year, raise budgets were based on QPR scores. How that worked was not communicated ahead of time (maybe purposely). That meant that groups that were tougher in rating got less raises and those that were easier raters got more.

It appears that they want to first see how the QPR scores come out. If they are out of line they will adjust for the purpose of raises. All this will end up doing is equalizing the raises for each district.

In essence, I'm sure there is a target raise %. If QPR's don't equal that target raise %, they will adjust to make it fit.

I don't think anyone can argue that budgeting raises is a problem, but this just seems like a very stupid way to do so.

The IT organization has been using a process similar to the HR "normalization" approach for about 3 years now.
It tries to force normalization from the bottom up so a top down adjustment does not have to be done.
It has not been accepted with open arms and most people distrust the process.
Any change is always resisted and distrusted unless it is an obvious positive change for the people impacted.
For instance, if the "normalization" pushed up those people or groups at the bottom then everyone would be championing the new process.

 

[upscorpis]

I saw the initial deployment of the curve as a tool to allow different management teams a chance to really ask hard questions about their ratings vs. expectations. It forced a reexamination against the expected result. Initially, I believe this was a healthy exercise as different management teams naturally rate harder/easier than each other. The curve was a way to bring these inconsistent rating standards closer together. That's not to say everyone implemented it correctly but that's not the fault of the tool. My observation is this forced many IS managers that were not good at handling poor performers to deal with those situations instead of handing out average or just under average ratings. The take away is the number people actually performing at the low end of the curve diminished during the initial implementation.

Now we're three years into it and the expected distribution of the curve is still the same. This makes no sense as the population being measured is no longer normal due to the impact of the first three years. I keep hearing that we have to "raise the bar" in order to keep the results aligned to the curve. If that is the expectation, then HR should come out and present that expectation overtly and explain exactly how it should be implemented, especially in light of the new job models. If the bar is not to be raised, then someone that knows something about statistics needs to counsel our HR partners about why the curve cannot remain that same if the population is not random due to actions already taken. In either case, lack of clear direction leaves this in the hands of local management teams which is a recipe foe a big mess to ensue (with emphasis on the "sue").

 

[beentheredonethat]

Quite a while ago, the ERM printed off the QPR results for the various departments in the district. He printed it on our departments printer and never went to get it. I brought it to him, but got a chance to look at the results. It was funny, the least best HR mgmt person scored higher the the best mgmt person in the hub. Ironically, this was also a period of time when HR couldn't staff the hub.

 

[pretzel_man]

The IT organization has been using a process similar to the HR "normalization" approach for about 3 years now.
It tries to force normalization from the bottom up so a top down adjustment does not have to be done.
It has not been accepted with open arms and most people distrust the process.
Any change is always resisted and distrusted unless it is an obvious positive change for the people impacted.
For instance, if the "normalization" pushed up those people or groups at the bottom then everyone would be championing the new process.

Hoax,

I don't know much about the IS process, but there is some interesting news with this one....

Normalization not only occurs at a district level, but it also is broken into three groups. Managers and Supervisors, 18's - 20's, and District Managers and Above.

That means that someone can't say that the 20's are great and the Sups are poor. They are each treated the same.

 

[Catatonic]

Hoax,

I don't know much about the IS process, but there is some interesting news with this one....

Normalization not only occurs at a district level, but it also is broken into three groups. Managers and Supervisors, 18's - 20's, and District Managers and Above.

That means that someone can't say that the 20's are great and the Sups are poor. They are each treated the same.

I guess this is an improvement for the Level 20's and above - my understanding is that they were always told they were a piece of sit and they better get their head out of their ass or they were going to be canned! And that was on a good day.

 

[rod]

You seem a bit disenchanted.

UPS has been going down this path for at least 15 years.
I remember observing back in the 90's that UPS was becoming more and more like a Socialist government.
The lack of individual recognition through pay increases (unless you were promoted) and the concept of centralized top down control and decision making.
I remember one particular discussion of this in my annual pay review in 1999 - I think George (my boss at the time) thought I was a bit looney.

Dang---the truth was out about you even way back then.

 

[BURMDPsupe]

I wonder why "Normalization" wasn't used to correct the low EES (old ERI) scores?

M-

 

[Signature Only]

I guess this is why our managers seem so pissed off lately...like they've given up.

 

[Anonymous 10]

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.)

to bad you don't have a union contract.

 

[TxRoadDawg]

to bad you don't have a union contract.

funny how my morning entertainment for the last eight years was always listening to the pt hourlies bitch about their contract and drivers bitch about how much they had to do to earn their 31 an hour