SFA per retired manager

[outtatime]

A courier at our station once made it to ops manager. But it was too much B.S. and he gave it up to stay a courier.

I once heard that if someone steps down from ops manager to courier, they are automatically given top courier rate. Not sure if that is true or not.

 

[HedleyLamarr]

I once heard that if someone steps down from ops manager to courier, they are automatically given top courier rate. Not sure if that is true or not.

I have heard that as well. We have two former OP managers who are now couriers at my station. One of them was an amazing manager, and I was really bummed when he stepped down.

 

[McFeely]

I once heard that if someone steps down from ops manager to courier, they are automatically given top courier rate. Not sure if that is true or not.

It is true. In fact, the only people I know who are topped out are because they were previous ops managers.

 

[Fred's Myth]

It is true. In fact, the only people I know who are topped out are because they were previous ops managers.

And ops managers in California (highest market) can transfer anywhere and retain their pay rate. Had one at my previous station that was making more than the senior manager.

 

[59 Dano]

I would imagine any concerns raised would not be unique. I don’t see how someone in management would be shocked by issues brought up in that type of meeting.

They shouldn't be. You're going to have someone who has an issue, real or perceived, in a workgroup of 25+ employees. It doesn't even have to be something that's wrong, just something that could be done better, or something that needs clarification. Not having someone point out a concern is unusual.

 

[59 Dano]

In my opinion those that are intelligent enough to be good managers, are also intelligent enough NOT to get into management. I have seen good people step down from management because they just could not play the stupid games Fedex requires of them.

Most of these good people who step down do so because they aren't effective leaders. The easiest way to be a "good manager" is to do all you can to placate your workgroup and blame corporate for anything you can't/won't do.

 

[59 Dano]

I once heard that if someone steps down from ops manager to courier, they are automatically given top courier rate. Not sure if that is true or not.

Nope.

 

[59 Dano]

And ops managers in California (highest market) can transfer anywhere and retain their pay rate.

LOL.

 

[vantexan]

Nope.

That must have changed because I knew a couple of mgrs who did just that.

 

[whenIgetthere]

I once heard that if someone steps down from ops manager to courier, they are automatically given top courier rate. Not sure if that is true or not.

It is true, friend stepped down twenty years ago, topped out, retired two years ago.

 

[Stat41]

Most of these good people who step down do so because they aren't effective leaders. The easiest way to be a "good manager" is to do all you can to placate your workgroup and blame corporate for anything you can't/won't do.

The people who stepped down that I was referring to were good managers. Tried to follow policy, be fair, and treat the employees equally. The basic takeaway was that managers manage people. Administrators manage policies and procedures. We mostly have administrators. And the policies and procedures they are tasked to enforce are frequently contradictory, opaque, and self-defeating. Its a corrupt system. We rarely have effective managers anymore. I understand Dano that your experience and viewpoint seems to be much different than mine. I always look forward to your feedback.

 

[59 Dano]

The people who stepped down that I was referring to were good managers. Tried to follow policy, be fair, and treat the employees equally. The basic takeaway was that managers manage people. Administrators manage policies and procedures. We mostly have administrators. And the policies and procedures they are tasked to enforce are frequently contradictory, opaque, and self-defeating. Its a corrupt system. We rarely have effective managers anymore. I understand Dano that your experience and viewpoint seems to be much different than mine. I always look forward to your feedback.

Good managers, as you've described them, are glorified babysitters.

It doesn't matter how well they follow policy, how fair they are, or how equally they treat the employees if they aren't doing so en route to attaining meaningful goals for their workgroup/station. Some people see an objective and their minds start considering the options to achieve it. Others see an objective and their minds start considering the reasons why they probably won't achieve it. It's just a difference in the way people are wired.

The effective managers and the ineffective ones both work in the same system.

 

[vantexan]

Good managers, as you've described them, are glorified babysitters.

It doesn't matter how well they follow policy, how fair they are, or how equally they treat the employees if they aren't doing so en route to attaining meaningful goals for their workgroup/station. Some people see an objective and their minds start considering the options to achieve it. Others see an objective and their minds start considering the reasons why they probably won't achieve it. It's just a difference in the way people are wired.

The effective managers and the ineffective ones both work in the same system.

And there was a time when the company in general, not just one's immediate mgr, made employees feel a part of something bigger than themselves. If the company succeeded then the employee succeeded. We routinely told people why FedEx was the way to go not only in shipping but in employment. At this point it's tough to tell frontline employees that they must achieve this or that goal for the good of the company. It for quite awhile just feels like the company wants and wants without giving anything worthwhile back.

 

[Cactus]

At this point it's tough to tell frontline employees that they must achieve this or that goal for the good of the company. It for quite awhile just feels like the company wants and wants without giving anything worthwhile back.

So true. Work yourself to death so Fred, his buddies at the top and the stockholders can enjoy the good life while everyone else live in the poorhouse. And then that still ain't good enough for them.

Good managers, as you've described them, are glorified babysitters.

It doesn't matter how well they follow policy, how fair they are, or how equally they treat the employees if they aren't doing so en route to attaining meaningful goals for their workgroup/station. Some people see an objective and their minds start considering the options to achieve it. Others see an objective and their minds start considering the reasons why they probably won't achieve it. It's just a difference in the way people are wired.

The effective managers and the ineffective ones both work in the same system.

"Meaningful Goals?" In other words, keep raising the bar higher each month while lowering the earning power of the employees simultaneously. Sounds like a corporate slime definition. Coming from you that's no big surprise.

 

[Stat41]

Good managers, as you've described them, are glorified babysitters.

It doesn't matter how well they follow policy, how fair they are, or how equally they treat the employees if they aren't doing so en route to attaining meaningful goals for their workgroup/station. Some people see an objective and their minds start considering the options to achieve it. Others see an objective and their minds start considering the reasons why they probably won't achieve it. It's just a difference in the way people are wired.

The effective managers and the ineffective ones both work in the same system.

People who follow policies, are fair, and treat people equally is not the definition of a glorified babysitter. However, it is a definition of a person of integrity. It is also consistent with the stated Fedex Code of Conduct. Evidently you operate in an area of Fedex that is vastly different from mine. If so, good for you sir. But my Fedex experience these past few years is one of conflicting policies, deceitful managers, and inane decision making. And it appears to be getting worse.

 

[Artee]

I once heard that if someone steps down from ops manager to courier, they are automatically given top courier rate. Not sure if that is true or not.

You have to stay in the management position 18 or 24 months, then you would be eligible to step to courier at topped out pay. We have had a few in our area at different stations do that.

 

[59 Dano]

People who follow policies, are fair, and treat people equally is not the definition of a glorified babysitter.

It is when they are incapable of moving their workgroup or station forward. That's why I call them babysitters - they take the proper steps to get through the day. They don't lead their little corner of the company to better results.

It's the same in any occupation. My wife takes fitness classes. Some teachers can hardly get anyone to attend while others turn people away despite all of them teaching the same program. Why? Despite all of them playing the same songs and leading the same routines, the unpopular ones are guiding people through a workout and the popular ones are leading people to their fitness goals.

A person who mindlessly goes through the motions (even when they're admirable motions) is not someone you want in a leadership position.

 

[59 Dano]

You have to stay in the management position 18 or 24 months, then you would be eligible to step to courier at topped out pay. We have had a few in our area at different stations do that.

Technically, you have to finish out whatever amount of time you signed up for.

Anecdotally, the "I'm going to be a manager then step down so I'll be topped out" guys don't last that long in management. As a whole, anyway.

 

[Fergus Mahoney]

The best is to give them a really low SFA score and then don’t say anything during the meeting. Really pisses them off.

This year I told all of them that I was marking strongly disagree across the board.

 

[Stat41]

It is when they are incapable of moving their workgroup or station forward. That's why I call them babysitters - they take the proper steps to get through the day. They don't lead their little corner of the company to better results.

It's the same in any occupation. My wife takes fitness classes. Some teachers can hardly get anyone to attend while others turn people away despite all of them teaching the same program. Why? Despite all of them playing the same songs and leading the same routines, the unpopular ones are guiding people through a workout and the popular ones are leading people to their fitness goals.

A person who mindlessly goes through the motions (even when they're admirable motions) is not someone you want in a leadership position.

You are reading and responding to things in my original post that were just not there. I never mentioned they were incapable, poor leaders, went through the motions, etc. etc. In my opinion you just made a false and negative assumption to support your own bias. But you did not and can not rebut my position and the facts about the employees I was speaking of. You are not here. You do not know them. You did not work under their leadership. I did.