I know annual reviews are starting and raises being communicated starting this week. Any want to share how their new pay band compares to their old one? I don't have my meeting till next week and am very curious.
15 replies (most recent on top)
I don't know how shrinking the top end is going to make them competitive. Similar jobs I know of at Verizon pay quite a bit more than AT&T.
Give the poor and low paid a trophy for participating. Take the money from those that have more and hold them back while the low paid underperformers catch up. Let's make their pay all the same regardless of contribution, skills and knowledge.
I didn’t qualify for one, so no, I didn’t.
I worked too hard in the past, so I made too much to qualify for one.
Kinda like I worked too hard in the past to qualify for a raise this year.
“These new tsr ranges and the accompanying policy is socialism...”
For god sakes you “socialism alarmist” halfwits are exhausting. Let me guess, you didn’t spend either of those socialist covid stimulus checks, right?
I’m at 60% of midpoint and was told yesterday I’m getting a 22% raise! And I got 8 more vacation days than I did last year. This is a great company. I plan to stay 3-5 years then go to Amazon
att innovation - rearrange employees and their pay bands and if that doesn't save enough money then let them go.
Are these getting released at the same time as merits ? Should be this Friday then.
"So, a corporation using shareholder return as an excuse to cut pay and force older people out the door where they fend for their health because other companies also don't want to hire an "old"( 40) person...is socialism ?
Welcome to TheLayoff, folks!"
It's hilarious! That's the word Sean, Laura, and Ann taught them for anything they don't like.
Fear not! Fortunately, they have all the freedom to leave and pursue non-socialist free capitalism at another employer. Now, back to reading up on the German bombing of Pearl Harbor.
1xqv+19yjaemm The discussion is not about forcing people out it is about the new TSRs that redistribute from the employees in the upper part of a pay band to the lower as far as increases. ................... it will not make T more competitive by taking incentive away from employees to exceed to get a raise.
OK wait.
So, a corporation using shareholder return as an excuse to cut pay and force older people out the door where they fend for their health because other companies also don't want to hire an "old"( 40) person...is socialism ?
Welcome to TheLayoff, folks!
These new tsr ranges and the accompanying policy is socialism. They take from the rich and give to the poor. Few have any reason to exceed as their potential increase is limited especially the higher paid
Take your pay band last year, find the middle between the max and the min. It’s now 80-120% of that middle number. Let’s say the max was $140k and min was $60k, so the midpoint was $100k. This year your payband is.. Tier 1, 80-90k. Tier 2, 90-110k. Tier 3, 110-120k.
When I was a new hire I was told that the raises went to the more senior experienced managers and that I would appreciate the treatment when I arrived decades later. I got the big "$800 team" award.
When I became a senior experienced manager I was told that we didn't meet fianancial objectives EVER from about 1984 to 2005 and that there would be no raises for "us". But the new hires would jump ship if they don't get raises so
that group would get the raises and besides us old folks were making more than the younger unexperienced unknowledgable managers. Those of us who knew something, did all of the work would get those valuable stock awards - toilet paper was more valuable as it was at least tangible and had a worth.
Glad to see things haven't changed since 1970.
Management tried to actually suggest to some of the seniors in our group that they are just bringing others up who perhaps have been treated unfairly in the past. Those others have had many Managers previously so were all of their previous Managers treating them unfairly throughout their career? Also, some had a lot less years and may be why their salary range was lower. Perhaps they just were not knocking themselves out? I wonder. No mention of new hires getting the bump and how unfair that is.
25% less as I was at the top end. And it's not just tenure that got me there, it was consecutive years of strong performance appraisals and managers who believed in pay for performance. No more of that...new form of corporate socialism emerging. While my pay doesn't go down, it won't go up if I achieved objectives or exceed them.