two pay raises this year??

[SmithBarney]

Trying to understand the logic of that statement. What, exactly, is the "propaganda" benefit of 100% participation?

If a manager can at least convince 100% of his workgroup to take the SFA, then they are considered effective managers... if nobody takes the SFA or even 50%, the managers boss will say "HEY how come you can't get these guys to take the SFA" if you can't get them to take the SFA, you must not be able to lead very well, thus you can't make them work better

 

[optikz]

Anyone hear anything else about the rumors of doing away with the lower market level pay scale?

 

[whenIgetthere]

Anyone hear anything else about the rumors of doing away with the lower market level pay scale?

I have heard it, will believe it when I open my paystub and see it!

 

[optikz]

I have heard it, will believe it when I open my paystub and see it!

Lol. You and me both. Market level B should have been eliminated a long time ago

 

[59 Dano]

If a manager can at least convince 100% of his workgroup to take the SFA, then they are considered effective managers... if nobody takes the SFA or even 50%, the managers boss will say "HEY how come you can't get these guys to take the SFA" if you can't get them to take the SFA, you must not be able to lead very well, thus you can't make them work better

If I'm the subject of an SFA, I'd rather anyone who'd give me a bad score abstain from taking it. If they take it and tank my score, I have to explain it and develop a plan to better the score and so on. If they don't take it, my score is higher. The heat I catch for a low participation is nothing compared to full participation and a low score. To each his own.

 

[El Morado Diablo]

If a manager can at least convince 100% of his workgroup to take the SFA, then they are considered effective managers...

The only reason why they want 100% participation is so they can pester everyone to hurry up and take the SFA so they can see their scores. They hate being made to wait till the end of the survey period by employees that refuse to take the survey.

 

[vantexan]

Had a coworker from a previous station call me today and say that they were just told they were moving from a B to an A station. I asked if it was in June and he's certain it's happening in April. This was from out of the blue, didn't ask him about it earlier.

 

[SmithBarney]

If I'm the subject of an SFA, I'd rather anyone who'd give me a bad score abstain from taking it. If they take it and tank my score, I have to explain it and develop a plan to better the score and so on. If they don't take it, my score is higher. The heat I catch for a low participation is nothing compared to full participation and a low score. To each his own.

So if nobody takes it do you get a 0%? and 0% raise?

 

[McFeely]

Dumb questions: how many pay scales does Express currently have and how can I tell which one I'm in?

/noob

 

[vantexan]

Dumb questions: how many pay scales does Express currently have and how can I tell which one I'm in?

/noob

The payscales from lowest to highest are B, A, E, friend, H, J, L. Ask your mgr which one you're on but someone may be able to tell you if you tell us what your starting pay was?

 

[optikz]

Dumb questions: how many pay scales does Express currently have and how can I tell which one I'm in?

/noob

They have too many. Lol. They should eliminate the bottom 3 at a minimum.

 

[dezguy]

We have 3 up here. Either way, I don't think there should be market levels at all. We all do the same work, therefore should be paid the same.

Besides, it's been my experience that you usually end up working harder at smaller stations than you would at larger ones.

 

[SmithBarney]

We have 3 up here. Either way, I don't think there should be market levels at all. We all do the same work, therefore should be paid the same.

Besides, it's been my experience that you usually end up working harder at smaller stations than you would at larger ones.

The problem with the market levels is that they aren't based on COST of living, but based rather on the LOCAL wages/unemployment
For example we have a major metro near us(1hr away) They are a LEVEL A, we are LEVEL B.
Its actually cheaper to live in this METRO area than it is to live in our city.
GAS, Rent, Food is all cheaper, only difference is in the METRO they can't find anyone to work for B LEVEL wages, so they have to offer more.

Now our area we use to have a line out the door when hiring... but not anymore since $15/hr jobs aren't appealing, we have to offer more if we want better workers.(or any)

 

[Schweddy]

If a manager can at least convince 100% of his workgroup to take the SFA, then they are considered effective managers... if nobody takes the SFA or even 50%, the managers boss will say "HEY how come you can't get these guys to take the SFA" if you can't get them to take the SFA, you must not be able to lead very well, thus you can't make them work better

I think part of that "effectiveness" is making employees feel that they have no right BUT to take SFA, work hours outside of their shift, work days off, etc. At least, that's how things tend to happen here.

If I'm the subject of an SFA, I'd rather anyone who'd give me a bad score abstain from taking it. If they take it and tank my score, I have to explain it and develop a plan to better the score and so on. If they don't take it, my score is higher. The heat I catch for a low participation is nothing compared to full participation and a low score. To each his own.

interesting way to play the game. Are SFA's anonymous other than the fact that you can probably keep track of when you told certain people to take them? Or are results known from each courier? And I need to re-read this thread but what does the SFA have to do with courier raises? Or no correlation?

 

[59 Dano]

interesting way to play the game. Are SFA's anonymous other than the fact that you can probably keep track of when you told certain people to take them? Or are results known from each courier? And I need to re-read this thread but what does the SFA have to do with courier raises? Or no correlation?

They are anonymous and have nothing to do with raises.

If you know your employees, you should have a decent idea of how well they will rate you. A general rule of thumb is that people place a greater importance on more recent events.

 

[Operational needs]

They are anonymous and have nothing to do with raises.

If you know your employees, you should have a decent idea of how well they will rate you. A general rule of thumb is that people place a greater importance on more recent events.

Not me. I look at the big picture.
So what do you think about Ops managers being held accountable for how couriers rate the other questions having nothing to do with their managers?

 

[59 Dano]

Not me. I look at the big picture.

That's why they call it a general rule of thumb instead of a concrete law that is correct 100% of the time

So what do you think about Ops managers being held accountable for how couriers rate the other questions having nothing to do with their managers?

They DO have something to do with their managers. The really good managers have those issues in mind with just about everything they do or say throughout the course of the year; subtle things. Their senior managers (hopefully) talk with them regularly about how their actions influence the answers to those questions and how the way they handle issues within their workgroups can influence them.

There are a lot of "good" managers who score very well on questions that relate to them, but very poorly on all of the ones that have "nothing" to do with them. That's a sign that the manager ignores those issues or plays the "There ain't anything I can do about it" card. They aren't expected to produce a whole lot of strongly agree responses, but a terrible score on those questions points back to a manager who is unconcerned with those issues.

 

[fedex_rtd]

They are anything but anonymous...ok your name is not on the score, but your manager knows who did and did not take the SFA, a majority of managers will take a look at their scores multiple times during the day, along with a roster of employees that just completed it...not to hard to figure out who gave what score.

 

[Operational needs]

That's why they call it a general rule of thumb instead of a concrete law that is correct 100% of the time



They DO have something to do with their managers. The really good managers have those issues in mind with just about everything they do or say throughout the course of the year; subtle things. Their senior managers (hopefully) talk with them regularly about how their actions influence the answers to those questions and how the way they handle issues within their workgroups can influence them.

There are a lot of "good" managers who score very well on questions that relate to them, but very poorly on all of the ones that have "nothing" to do with them. That's a sign that the manager ignores those issues or plays the "There ain't anything I can do about it" card. They aren't expected to produce a whole lot of strongly agree responses, but a terrible score on those questions points back to a manager who is unconcerned with those issues.

I beg to differ. That's BS and you know it. My father has often repeated the saying, Actions speak louder than words. A manager can preach to me about how I'm being paid fairly until he's blue in the face, and the truth shows every week on my paycheck. Station management can ply us with donuts and breakfast 5 days a week to show us that "Fedex Cares", but the reality is in my ever expanding employee file of OLCC's and warning letters, even after 20 plus years if being told what a great courier I am.

And then the insurance that's not worth much. Another whole line of BS I don't buy when management tries to convince me how good I have it.

You may be gullible enough to buy the smoke and mirrors but I'm don't. I rate my manager well, because he does a great job and rate the company horribly.

 

[Operational needs]

That's why they call it a general rule of thumb instead of a concrete law that is correct 100% of the time



They DO have something to do with their managers. The really good managers have those issues in mind with just about everything they do or say throughout the course of the year; subtle things. Their senior managers (hopefully) talk with them regularly about how their actions influence the answers to those questions and how the way they handle issues within their workgroups can influence them.

There are a lot of "good" managers who score very well on questions that relate to them, but very poorly on all of the ones that have "nothing" to do with them. That's a sign that the manager ignores those issues or plays the "There ain't anything I can do about it" card. They aren't expected to produce a whole lot of strongly agree responses, but a terrible score on those questions points back to a manager who is unconcerned with those issues.

And another thing, if FedEx was such a great place to work with great pay and benefits, there would be QUALITY prospects lined up for the jobs, as opposed to the misfits who are hired now. When I was hired, if you didn't know someone on the inside your chances of being hired were pretty small. Now, if you have a pulse and can pass the 3 requirements, it's a piece of cake.