Discussion in 'UPS Partners' started by smokey, Dec 2, 2012.
60%? Or 1.2 in the old factor.
1.2 or lower
1 if that, its a sham though, record profits, just not in line with the selected unattainable targets.........
You guys are probably right based on how they have "enhanced us". If it was the old formula, it wouldn't suprise me if it was a 4.
Honestly the MIP is about as unfair as it gets. Corporate says it was set up to be fair but the math really does not make sense when matched against the profits. Then again its not exactly profit sharing, that comes with stock dividends i guess. I have came to the conclusion that it would be better to buy savings bonds instead of stock in the company. That in its self is truely sad. Buying stock in a country that is trillions of dollars in debt versus buying stock in a company that records record profits year after year, but in reality bonds at least pay better. Oh well only 17 more days till the end of the world anyway.
Most management have come to regard the MIP as irrelevant since it is not something they can control.
If I can't control something, my interest and effort are not applied.
I would assume a fairly large number of management feel this way.
This is a problem for the company.
The decision to award you less than you truly deserve is being made by people who are awarded more than they truly deserve. MIP's are like timestudies; they were never intended to be fair, realistic or equitable in the first place.
Contract Year - where do you think that money is coming from?
I've come to lower my expectations from UPS when it comes to being rewarded financially for my efforts. To align with that, of course, my efforts are now MUCH less as well.
So you are saying the bargaining unit is getting a bigger slice of the pie? Sweet!
MIP used to be far more equitable, but I agree that it doesn't look like it's intended to be equitable right now. I'm tired of the inequity. The front line can't impact the MIP elements no matter how hard they work. Meanwhile, upper management is racking up the incentive shares and dividends due to a compensation package designed by a very highly paid former Symantec CEO. It's hard to admit, but I'm starting to come around to Warren Buffet and the Democrat point of view that we should tax them significantly more. It won't get the front line any more money, but at least it will kick some of it into the country's general fund.
I guess we should go back to the more equitable MIP of the early 60's? Jim Casey's MIP program....
Or, the more equitable approach where you had to take it all in stock and if you sold your future was unsettled?
Whether you think you can or whether you think you cannot make a difference, you are right.
Wages for both hourly and management were significantly above average under Casey. Equitable or not, his system made many UPSers millionaires. Where are the millionaires these days?
Futures today are more unsettled than ever. People fired, demoted, out on stress leave, afraid for their jobs every day, just like back then. Difference now is that when you get stock you don't actually get stock, and the stock you do get doesn't grow.
You may get a bigger slice of the pie (Sweet!), but you will pay for it! Sweet!
What's the grapevine saying? 80%?
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209 7494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651 3282306647093844609550582231725359408128481117450284102 7019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461 2847564823378678316527120190914564856692346034861045432 6648213393607260249141273724587006606315588174881520920 9628292540917153643678925903600113305305488204665213841 4695194151160943305727036575959195309218611738193261179 3105118548074462379962749567351885752724891227938183011 9491298336733624406566430860213949463952247371907021798 6094370277053921717629317675238467481846766940513200056 8127145263560827785771342757789609173637178721468440901 2249534301465495853710507922796892589235420199561121290 2196086403441815981362977477130996051870721134999999837 2978049951059731732816096318595024459455346908302642522 3082533446850352619311881710100031378387528865875332083 8142061717766914730359825349042875546873115956286388235 3787593751957781857780532171226806613001927876611195909 2164201989380952572010654858632788659361533818279682303 0195203530185296899577362259941389124972177528347913151 5574857242454150695950829533116861727855889075098381754 6374649393192550604009277016711390098488240128583616035 6370766010471018194295559619894676783744944825537977472 6847104047534646208046684259069491293313677028989152104 7521620569660240580381501935112533824300355876402474964
Wait, that was Pi, not the MIP factor . . .
Accurals are being made for 70% or 1.4....
That doesn't surprise me..
What was it they said, the average MIP was a 2.0 (which is what a 100 is based on). Since we enhanced the plan, never saw a 2.0 (or better), even though we have less mgmt and highest profit at UPS.
Actually, no... They didn't say that.
I finally found that original presentation. It said that the average MIP was 1.6 (over the life of the plan). Average in last 20 years was 1.8.
Now, Hoax point out that they use 2.0 as a salary example when hiring someone and 2.0 is also used in the impact of a raise sheets.
That is certainly inappropriate.
It is very common for companies to use the Plan "target" to illustrate incentive plan potential when making job offers or communicating to employees.
Separate names with a comma.