two pay raises this year??

AllBoxes

Active Member
Well if they reduce the pay scales in June the I guess it would be a pay adjustment and not a raise. But would actually be a pay raise?
 

optikz

Well-Known Member
Well if they reduce the pay scales in June the I guess it would be a pay adjustment and not a raise. But would actually be a pay raise?


Guess you can look at it as a raise, just not your regular raise in October. I'm in market level b, which is one of the lowest. We have 2 markets close to us so in Atlanta and Columbia which make $2 more an hour so I'm hoping we get bumped up to their market level. We've had people leave here for those markets and pay similar mortgage and rent that they were paying here
 

SmithBarney

Well-Known Member
...We've had people leave here for those markets and pay similar mortgage and rent that they were paying here
I think that is what they are trying to fix.. lots of people are willing to commute an extra hour/day for that $2. Also when inside hiring happens nobody usually in an A market wants to move to a B. Outside hires are the same way, our last hiring had to be for outsiders since noone bid the jobs. and we only had 1 applicant for 3 positions... people see the starting pay and walk away
 

HedleyLamarr

Well-Known Member
I was talking to my manager yesterday; he said that the ten step system is supposed to be completed in ten years. So one step per year. He didn't know anything about pay tiers changing though.
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
I was talking to my manager yesterday; he said that the ten step system is supposed to be completed in ten years. So one step per year. He didn't know anything about pay tiers changing though.

Some newsletters going out to stations say the same thing. OK, not so much newsletters as they are rah-rah letters before the SFA addressing some of the bigger issues of last year's SFA.

The one I have raht-cheer in front of me says that we will transition to step progression program for everyone that is 7I and above. It also states that these steps will be hit on an annual schedule and that employees will hit top of range in no more than 10 years.

Three ways it could be implemented come October:

1) Employees who've been here 10 years are more are topped out. Those who aren't will have their length of employment subtracted from 10 and have their pay adjusted to the corresponding step, and will top out when they hit 10 years. For example, an 8 year employee will have his pay adjusted to the 8th step, and will top out in 2 more years. Obviously this would be very popular.

2) Each employee will have his length of service thrown into a formula to determine which step he should be on in the progression and then go from there. This could be decent, I guess, depending on how it is administered.

3) Each employee's current rate of pay will be bumped up to the next step in the progression and then go from there. I can't see this being received very well by anyone other than new hires at bottom of range.

The paperwork I have says that each employee will top out in a "maximum of 10 years," but that could easily mean 10 years from the start of the step plan. This will be expensive no matter which option is used, so there will be an offset somewhere (FPP elimination was part of it) which could be a reduction in the number of market levels.

It could be structured like Southwest's ramp agent step plan was (and still is, I think). There was a 15 year plan, and around $15 or $16 difference between bottom and top. The difference between day one and the 14th step was around $11 and you got a huge raise on the last step. It wouldn't be surprising for our plan to be more heavily weighted toward the latter steps.
 

SmithBarney

Well-Known Member
I like option 1. because if it was based on the "sample" chart that was circulating most 10 yr employees would end up at step 3-5, still having 5-8 years to top out.
 

SmithBarney

Well-Known Member
BTW: Last week I Also confirmed from the Horses mouth(or opposite end) that Some market levels will be getting a bump, not sure how many there are, I've only been at A and B levels, alot of B levels are getting bumping to A.

So I anticipate with the confirmed Raises, and possibility of Market levels changing. That our health insurance will probably jump too...
 

optikz

Well-Known Member
BTW: Last week I Also confirmed from the Horses mouth(or opposite end) that Some market levels will be getting a bump, not sure how many there are, I've only been at A and B levels, alot of B levels are getting bumping to A.

So I anticipate with the confirmed Raises, and possibility of Market levels changing. That our health insurance will probably jump too...
So what kind of difference is there between market a and b?
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
BTW: Last week I Also confirmed from the Horses mouth(or opposite end) that Some market levels will be getting a bump, not sure how many there are, I've only been at A and B levels, alot of B levels are getting bumping to A.

So I anticipate with the confirmed Raises, and possibility of Market levels changing. That our health insurance will probably jump too...

That's possible. Could also reduce guaranteed minimum hours. Or they could change the OT standards, such as eliminating the automatic OT for all hours worked over 8 in one day.

It depends on which path they want to take. Raising insurance would make nearly everyone mad. Adjusting the minimums would make a few people mad. Doing something to OT would make a decent number of people mad. The idea would be to offset the new pay progression as much as possible while upsetting the fewest people.
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
search job change calculator from the fedex intranet you can enter your current wage and position to determine.

It probably doesn't matter in this case but you can't always rely on the calculator. If someone decides they don't think you should get what it says they will dust off a loophole or come up with some BS excuse to change it. There's not much you can do about it, either.
 

MAKAVELI

Well-Known Member
That's possible. Could also reduce guaranteed minimum hours. Or they could change the OT standards, such as eliminating the automatic OT for all hours worked over 8 in one day.

It depends on which path they want to take. Raising insurance would make nearly everyone mad. Adjusting the minimums would make a few people mad. Doing something to OT would make a decent number of people mad. The idea would be to offset the new pay progression as much as possible while upsetting the fewest people.
Adjusting the overtime rate would not work in California it's anything over 8 hours and 40
 
Top