I have a few people on my team that have been at the Bank for a long time. Three people are over 20 years and two are around 18 years. Im only at 7 years. Anyway, they are arguing that the RSU award should have been based on tenure and not compensation. They say why not reward the employees that have been here the longest with more units. In that case, they think long time dedicated employees out weighs shorter term employees with higher compensation. The long time folks are fired up over here. Not sure i agree but I guess I can see where they are coming from but thought I would share their gripes on this board to see what others thought.
12 replies (most recent on top)
Just because you have worked somewhere a long time doesn’t mean you are contributing more than someone who has worked less tenure. In all honesty, sometimes it is the opposite, because people coming in have seen best practices at other companies. This is kind of a silly argument.
@5znm+1f8Msm7M share price is determined by the market at the time you're able to sell them, in years 1, 2, 3 and 4. BAC can't and doesn't know what the shares will be worth when they are finally vested. Giving 120 shares vs. 200 shares was not done so because the shares are "worth" more today, since we're not able to sell them today, they were done so to appease lower income earners by giving them shares at the cost of taking them away from higher income earners.
To the last poster - value the shares by year. 300 last year when the share price was $32 isn’t much different from 240 shares this year at $42 ( think share price when board approved in December) so yes fewer shares but similar “amount”. And if someone’s pay can loosely be used as a proxy for the value they bring to the business then using comp ranges to set award targets makes sense.
If the RSUs are to promote longevity with the bank, then the formula should have a component for seniority. Salary x (years of service x .5) = # units
Shows sincerity and actual commitment to stated goal. Not done because you might actually have to pay the long term folks. The majority of newer hires won't be there for the vesting.
Never liked this argument.the group I came from based too much on seniority. Lots of people in my old group long tenured but not very good at what they did. No growth, and lacked drive to learn “new procedure” changes. They always thought the old way or old systems were better. This mentality in general is what I see as the banks most significant opportunity. Even at senior level with WFH pushback. It’s all about connections etc. the world has changed. The tenured people need to be open to change and new ways of connecting. Its time to connect via technology and upgrade our technology. Sigh….. (I’m looking at you baby boomers!!!)
Because the whole award thing is really a retention thing and the whole point is trying to keep you here, I kind of see the argument. Actually reward the folks that have stayed through the years with this forsaken company
The fact they have been there so long means there is something wrong with them in
Sadly someone can make more impact in 1 year than others in 20+, so tenure doesn't always equate to contribution. Compensation seems like an equally as flawed way to do it as well, though.
At least isn't not left to "manager discretion"
show me the incentive and i'll show you the outcome
Only somebody who's only worked at a single company for decades would think that loyalty is something that's still rewarded.
Based on pay
It's not really based on compensation.
This year, 120 shares.
Last year, 150 shares.
Year before, 200 shares.
Compensation from 200 share year to 120 didn't change, so it wasn't based off that.