Thread regarding Thomson Reuters layoffs

New titles = better pay?

There's been a change of titles for many people in Hoboken. Anyone have any guesses or insight into what this means?

by
| 1694 views | |
Post ID: @OP+12BjG5zu

8 replies (most recent on top)

The Annual Sales Conference just ended for the Tax Professional Group and this is where you can see the absolute disconnect between the senior leaders and the rank and file. Everyone enjoys a good trip with free food and booze, especially the 20somethings who get enamored with getting free wine, beer and food and told how great they are, although Tax Pros had a fairly poor year and revenue was significantly down year over year and at a embarrassing level against plan. I really think Brian P, Jim S and others at that level really believe that the leaders are blinded to the fact that how poorly Tax Pros and other segments are running currently, and it is all because of the senior leadership in each group who are running amuck.

by
|
Post ID: @Qnru+12BjG5zu

It's still total chaos in terms of who to go to. Managers have no time to answer basic questions.

by
|
Post ID: @Njri+12BjG5zu

It’s all smoke and mirrors. If this company can save a buck, it will. Changing and playing around with job titles is one trick in their arsenal of penny pinching gimmicks. Some will fall for it. The way this company scrimps and saves you would swear they were down to their last Benjamin. For those considering leaving, go for it! Bide your time until you find a new job. Their are some really great employers out there who really value and appreciate their staff, and who realise that the way to grow a company is not by having annual layoffs and to make money you have to spend it effectively.

by
|
Post ID: @Mkfl+12BjG5zu

Last year during the reorg, if you were chosen to stay, you were appointed to a team that either directly or loosely overlapped with the duties in your former role. There were also many open roles, so people applied for and got these positions as well. Here’s where the trick comes in. Many suddenly found themselves working side by side with other coworkers doing essentially the same job but with very different pay, and folks who were appointed to teams weren’t leveled up in pay if the duties and role of the job they were appointed to exceeded that of their former role. Folks who applied for new roles may have gotten a small bump, but even there were often put in an unfair situation too as regardless of a role’s level or responsibility, there are caps when it comes to the percent increase in pay an existing employee can receive. To cover this, everyone was given ambiguous titles (many were “leads” — roles all the way from individual contributor up to C-level were all called “leads.” This enabled directors to work in similar roles to specialists, doing essentially the same job in a team without anyone getting too disgruntled because no one really knew where each other stood and pay bands were disguised by the ambiguous “lead” titles. This year, some parts of the org decided to revisit titles and have them match up with pay bands. While this will result in more long term wage equity and visibility, it’s caused a lot of discontent in the short term as now that titles are changing to reflect pay bands, folks are realizing where they really stand in terms of pay and job level compared to their peers — many of whom are doing essentially the same job or have taken on even more responsibility than their better paid peers.

by
|
Post ID: @Lync+12BjG5zu

What kind of titles? Are these former managers who are no longer "managers" but still doing management tasks?

by
|
Post ID: @4lig+12BjG5zu

It doesn't cost TR anything to play around with job titles. They realise that there will always be some employees who value that sort of thing and who will be satisfied by such a change. It all comes down to maximising use of organisational psychology. It's a bit like how some corporates respond to internal surveys asking if staff are "happy" . Notice how quite often they will respond to such surveys by implementing one thing like more staff training, whether staff need it or not, rather than responding directly to calls for better working conditions or better pay. Who benefits the most from such a response? Then there are the good old, somewhat crude, "techniques" from the scientific management school of the 1920s where you play around with things like lighting and temperature, which leads to a short term gain in productivity. Ahh, the list is endless!

by
|
Post ID: @3bro+12BjG5zu

The answer is always no when it comes to better pay in TR.

by
|
Post ID: @3tte+12BjG5zu

Put simply, last year they made up titles that made no sense, so it left people wondering what level they were at. My guess is that they can make them sound like promotions last year. Now that the dust is settling, they are reverting back to previous titles, so if your boss likes you, it will work out to your benefit, if not it won't. One thing you can almost guarantee, it won't mean any increase in pay.

by
|
Post ID: @2jiz+12BjG5zu

Post a reply

: