I noticed when looking at open jobs internally that the pay range for the level where I'm at is lower than what it was last year. These are positions in my current geographic location. My current salary is above the max for my level where last year it was slightly above midpoint. Has anyone noticed this? How are they going to approach salary increases?
18 replies (most recent on top)
@be … probably.
@ka gunjan
@ba why is she taking 30% off the top, where are the funds going?
@at Serious question? Why should employees be focused on driving results and innovating when the company is making our jobs so difficult to perform? We work in silos, are often given unachievable tasks with no resources or support, many teams are working for leaders who care more about making themselves look good for the MC than delivering for their BUs.
My team has been pared down to a handful of people when a few years ago, we were a team of nearly 30 people. Each person is doing the work of multiple people and not getting compensated appropriately, roles have not been backfilled for over a year. You're damn right people are going to coast! It's enough that the work is getting done appropriately. To expect innovation and any kind of -outstanding- result from an organization that actively kneecaps its employees is beyond insane!
@be That seems to be the underlying message from the company
As for the whole job posting for (for example) 17 showing up with 16 numbers, list a job title please because I am not seeing that. I am seeing the jobs show up with 85% to 100% of the SAME grade range it is posted at, including the geo part of the role.
@be consider yourself lucky. I know of teams where everyone is around 90% to midpoint. And it's no shocker that the newest people on the team (most recently hired) are at the highest of that compa ratio.
Nearly everyone on my team is now at the max of their pay salary grade. Are they expecting that we do not give merit increases to all these people and hope they all quit?
@b7 word is JR did it again this year. Rmc expect less than the rest of the bank
I am a manager and have been through several years (not telling number but somewhere between 5 and 10). Here's how it worked for me. (I had no managers reporting to me btw).
I get a pool of money and a target. Just talking merit here, base pay.
Let's say I have 10 people for easy math, 1 getting promotion (and thus exceeds), 1 getting exceeds but no promotion, and 8 getting meets, the 8 people get sc--wed.
If the pool allows all 10 people to get 3% raise that year, promoted person would get maybe 7%, exceeds get 4.5% and the other get less than 3%, they get maybe 2.5%. You are competing against each other. That assumes your Level 2 leader doesn't sc--w your whole org over like JR of RMC did last year by skimming off 30% off the pools before managers had a chance to fill out the comp numbers.
So if you were at 100% midpoint 1 year, and the salary ranges went up 3%, your 8 people get 2.5% raise, they go down in compa ratio.
It has been that way every single year. Lord knows what cr-p the MC will pull on us Monday when managers get into workday to do their part and see what crumbs we have to play with.
This is another reason they always limit the number of people who get exceeds and promotions. You have to (ideally) give them more so that leaves the meets with 1% maybe.
It just su-ks that the job market is trash, with no sign of improvement with all the tariffs, chaos from the white house, and massive shadow layoffs everywhere.
It's an employer's market and they are punishing us for standing up for ourselves before 2023.
Retail banking is a ship show. No one banks like before. Used to have 12-20 people now 3 or 4 and a security guard. Like a McDs in Harlem. And back office done in India. New world ordering approaches
This is nothing new. It’s been seen and known for many years that if you want more money, leave an come back.
There are safeguards in place for promotion increase for existing employees. I can’t remember the %, but there are limitations on what can be given without triggering an issue in pay increase.
Here is the other thing that has been known for years - MOST people stop getting adequate raises after 100% to midpoint. That’s not attractive when you hire someone AT midpoint and now they are up for merit increase.
I’ve worked here for 20+ years and have had several leaders explain that target salary is 85-90% of midpoint to allow for merit incentives. As people start getting closer to 100%, merit becomes less and this well capable employee should be promoted into the next level if applicable.
I also know people at or higher than midpoint and many of them are long term, comfortable, I’m just riding this out people. Not dedicated to growth. (Not everyone but I know more in that situation than over midpoint and actively driving results and innovation)
It’s even worse than what has been stated so far. I’ve heard extremely troubling things about hiring internal candidates and artificial caps that are being applied to what can be offered. Those same caps aren’t applied to external candidates. External hires are limited to 100% of midpoint whereas internal hires are being limited to a salary that is substantially lower than midpoint and even less if their current wages are lower. For example, if mid point is 100k and the internal candidate makes 60k, they’re likely hard capped at 80k, and would be offered or hard capped even less at only 70k because they only make 60k currently. Whereas an equally qualified external candidate is eligible for the full 100k. It’s despicable.
@ad got it. That makes sense. F'ing ridiculous.
@ab what I'm saying lines up with what you are saying and even to a greater extent. However, they are also saying it out loud now by lowering the range to the next lowest level. Like a 17 now has last year's level 16 pay range, etc...
correction (I am @AB below)
they used to advertise the 85% to 110% range on job postings and hire target at midpoint. Not 115%. The rest still stands.
They started this I think in Aug or Sept. So if a salary range has a mid point of 100K exactly for a given geo area (a thru f), then:
75k is the true min
85k - 85%
100k is the true midpoint
110 - 110%
125k is the true max
all in Workday
they used to advertise the 85% to 115% range on job postings and hire target at midpoint.
now they advertise 85% to 100% range on job postings and hire target at 90%.
Effectively paying lower than the market even more than they did before this. What do I mean by "even more than they did before"? Well, for a given job that has this hypothetical salary range I listed above of 100k midpoint, anywhere else that pays better will have the MIDpoint (emphasis on mid) at 110k. We've always paid less than our competitors.
Any way they can cut costs, they will. We are in famine mode right now.
Don’t believe the advertised salary range. The real rage is at 10% lower. Cheap a-s bank.