re: #120 sattv4u2

when public sector employment is not funded, and agencies have to try to do MORE with LESS, that means that there’s one less person helping

Not limited to the public sector

I think you know I work in a 24/7 environment. Years ago we had 8 techs

For the last 2+ years we’re doing it with 4 techs (layoffs followed by a hiring freeze)
This will be the 3rd year in a row we haven’t had a pay raise. We used to get a year end bonus based on performance review and funded at 100% (meaning if you aced your review you would get 100% of you allocated bonus,,, if your review was at the 75% scale you would get 75% of your allocated bonus)

We will get a year end bonus this year, but it’s funded at 50% (meaning even if you ace your review, you get 50% of your allocated bonus,,, bonuses are “allocated” based on your title,, a Tech 4 being the highest , a Tech 1 the lowest)

Hubby works for the oil industry, and there are plenty of years he doesn’t get an increase, regardless of his review, so I know what you’re talking about. But the discussion was about those lazy-ass public employees - so that’s what I addressed.

BTW - that system they have with weighting the bonuses according to review - I gotta tell you, I find those systems suck. Many times managers will inflate reviews to just be sure employees get a raise, particularly if the “raises” are 50% of what they’re supposed to be.

At the top of the scale - an extra bonus would be workable and not lead to inflated ratings.
At the bottom of the scale - zero bonus.
In the middle - should all be the same.
In my most humble opinion, and one of the jobs I did for a long time was oversee and manage the performance review programs for state employees (all 66,000 of them).