I know you are out there. What changes are they making to how comp reviews are done in January? I noticed HR didn't update the comp ranges this year, those ranges that show the min, mid, max. Those are usually done by now.
28 replies (most recent on top)
Speaking of The AI Clown & her smug face ... maybe she outta read the news ... https://www.extremetech.com/computing/microsoft-scales-back-ai-goals-because-almost-nobody-is-using-copilot ... and show some "expense discipline" (as her peer clown says).
Seriously ... what a bunch of id--ts we are having to report to these days ... sheesh!
@zh AI Clown ... LOL!!! Ironically, that clown's initials are the first 2 letters of your Post ID.
It was infuriating to watch them all run out the clock instead of answering the real questions. It isn't the first time they chickened out though. I understand they ask for submissions ahead of time so they can make up questions like these ...
@zc there was a question on Dillip’s town hall near the top about forced ranking but they just ignored it and ran out the clock so the AI clown could ask ChatGPT what the thing she is most proud of this year was
At one of the next townhalls where they let people submit questions, I want to post something like this:
You and your SVP directs forced me as a manager to pick 7% to 10% of my team for needs improvement even though some did not deserve this. Only 1 did. Did you give 7% to 10% of your directs a needs improvement as well? Why are we forcing good people who met expectations a poor rating? That is unethical. What happened to "we put people first"? What happened to this bank being an ethical bank?
And watch how fast the cowards delete that comment.
Our executives giving themselves a needs improvement? Pretty sure pigs would need to fly and he-l would have to freeze over for that type of introspection to come from our C-suites. Instead, let’s put pressure on a Grade 12 to arbitrarily “perform better” while being judged by middle managers who do nothing but kiss the ring.
I heard this week that our managing committee is requiring managers to provide more Need Improvement scores. They are forcing managers to pick people on their team even if they are all meaningful or above employees. Our senior leaders are trying to reach a percentage and claiming that a Needs improvement score should be assigned to anyone that needs to grow in their role. Nice way to change the rules on everyone without telling anyone. I wonder how many executives will get a Need Improvement?
@v8 Oh I totally get it! I’m a long time veteran of the bank and I am not at all pleased they are doing this right at comp time. The intent is blatant! They could have restructured remote earlier this year, but if they do this right after reviews, that’s dirty!
@v7 I'm sure with the amount of lawyers they pay, if there's a will there's a way.
I'm genuinely concerned about them pushing out remote people because we have management and peers that are remote and if we lose them we're f**ked.
@tm I’m actually not sure if they legally can if it’s not a choice the employee made. What they can do however is now greatly reduce or eliminate merit increase because those who came from higher from codes would automatically be at or over midpoint. From those who came from lower geo codes, they just fall further behind from midpoint and depending on what decisions are made about merit increases for remote, they may get marginal movement up.
So the employee is now forced into a no merit, no advancement situation.
It just occurred to me that I would not be surprised at all if HR will give people pay cuts if they are remote AND they are currently in an area that is geographic d, e, or f. This assumes that they will move all remote employees to one geographic code C like others have mentioned.
I didn't think about that the other day. I guarantee you the people in B & A will not get a raise but people in d, e, f I would bet good money that HR will give them a pay cut.
during covid when people voluntarily moved on their own from, for example d to c, HR forced them to take a pay cut. People that move the other direction however did not get a pay raise. I saw that happen myself to one of my peer manager's employees. I think in his case he went from c to b.
For those who have confirmed some of the remote changes, any idea on when that will be announced or employees will be shifted into the new code?
Also, when will some of those comp changes be told
@pq thank you. That makes more sense.
@pk no it will not be raise. It will just mean that you will be further from the midpoint in the downward direction. Your comp range will go up if this remote range turns out to be the letter c, but you're still going to get paid the same and maybe a 2% merit increase if you're lucky.
Remember, HR has always been double standard. If you moved from a to f, they don't give you a raise. But if you moved from f to a they will gladly give you a pay cut. That literally has happened. I can't speak for the people who were asked by the bank to move though. Just people that were voluntarily moving themselves.
Curious about the single Geo range for remote employees. I work in the low Geo Range B. We have employees on my team that remained remote because they live more than 30min away.
With our current Geo range being so low, the move to a single geo range could easily result in those employees getting a “raise”. So then they’re in a higher geo range than me AND don’t have to come to this prison block of an office?
That’s great for morale.
@ka second confirmation on this one ...
I can confirm that we are moving to a single geo range pay scale for remote employees. I don’t know exactly what that means or what the specifics are, but it is on the roadmap
@kb My hope is that the structure isn’t too far off from where it’s been. MOST meaningful still get merit, but understandably low meaningful may not.
Well the good thing for the investors and Wall Street, board, and C-suite, they successfully brainwashed all of you that unions (the idea of all employees banding together to fight for better treatment) is bad. And that same group successfully programmed all of you to hate regulation. And the state that has the most regulation (California) is now hated by a lot of people.
Yikes. Something seems amiss here. I have teams with 90 percent stellar performers, and I literally struggle to rank them against each other. On the same note, there are pods of people I review who are mediocre. 0 percent for meaningful seems insane. We’ve always limited extraordinary in the past, and now we’re saying meaningful gets no where? Meaningful has never even been a bad score.
I’m scared. Because I have extraordinary people ranked as meaningful, and that would be devastating to communicate.
I can confirm that we are moving to a single geo range pay scale for remote employees. I don’t know exactly what that means or what the specifics are, but it is on the roadmap
@jy This is such a HUGE risk for the company because it heavily advertises a pay for performance culture, and that’s why base salaries are targeted low. Also, to change at the end of a year is so wrong. It’s changes the rules at the end of the game. It would be different if they made these changes in January and said effective for this performance year. The thing is, not everyone can be extraordinary, and we know that! So to withhold from meaningful is a double edge sword. If you can’t be extraordinary then you can’t get a raise/bonus and you also can’t get a comparable salary (comparable to competitors). I’m not sure the angle that’s being targeted here by USB. (Yes I know many critics will say “to get people to quit”, but I try to see true business value and this one makes me scratch my head, a lot). You won’t let more than 20% extraordinary, and you are targeting meaningful to quit. You can’t run on 20% high performing employees.
@jy This shouldn't be news to any of you that are still with the bank. You have to make you own future and move to a place where you will be valued and fulfilled. Don't wait for them to do right by you and/or your family. Lord knows they won't.
I’ve heard a good chunk, like 15% or more of employees are to get 0 merit. Maybe that’s just one BL. The pay ranges are not changing, so same as 2025, so merit increase in general will su-k. All remote employees to be put in geo range C. Remote merit increase will be quite a bit less than in office. And think even if BL hits target and bonus pool supposed to be funded 100% sounds like you won’t get target if you are a meets. Basically trying to get everyone to quit.
@a6 would you elaborate more on the “comp changes” and “pay scaling changes between remote and hub” rumors?
Recruiter here. Min Mid Max of comp ranges willl not be changing for 2026. This is what we were told by a presenter from the compensation department.
@a6 96% of employees get meaningful. Shot mouths on here crack me up.
@ab (original commenter here), I’ve seen the same and been victim of the same. Getting a raise and yet backsliding on geo scale to midpoint. I’m equally curious as you are to see what changes lie ahead. There is definitely something
@a6 well, (original poster here), promotions have always come out of the same pool. If I have 100 people under me, and I want to promote 5 of them (5/100), I want to give them 10% instead of 3%. If I want to give out exceeds for another 10 (not including the 5 who got promotions) and give them 5%, cool. That's 15 people who are above the typical "meets" level.
There is a problem though, the pool for everyone is 3% (recently HR has done a tier system where low grades get a bigger target, higher grades get a lower target).
Anyways, if I give 15 people 10% and 5% raises (remember the splits above) I have to take that out of the other 85 people.
In theory, there are 10 people who are below expectations, and get nothing, which helps the remaining 75 who gets "met expectations" but that (according to HR) doesn't happen enough. If it's true that too many people who should have received a below rating got a "meet" instead, I am good with giving them "below". Too many slackers.
But the hunger games you mention has always been around. I have seen plenty of people during 3% pool years get a "meets" and be below midpoint but get 1.8, 2.0, 2.2 (even during high inflation) because of everyone competing for the same pool.
I heard comp changes coming so I bet this is all tied together. Also heard pay scaling changes between remote and hub. Not sure if that’s legal.
Other rumors include the possibility of no merit increase for meaningful. (Unless they’re talking about what’s already been in place when you have a low meaningful). Also heard if you wanna promote, it comes out of your comp pool! So have fun with that Hunger Games in the team.