Got a market adjustment, but staying at 98% MRP. Expected to go up to 99-100% this year, didn’t get any information about the MRP adjustment so far. Any insights?
6 replies (most recent on top)
3,7% in Germany
Per your point #1, while I don't think BB has any love for 3M or cares how much he beats employees, the LTIP cut decision was done before he started by a month or 2. And it was probably in process well before that for them to actually make the decision. So that one also falls to Mikey. The gift that keeps on taking!
I think it was during Desi Days that people were told (sold) on the idea that more compensation would be based in bonuses vs straight salary raises and GESPP would more than make up what you could hope for in just a raise only kind of world.
People got essentially a one time bump in share price to 150 (ok it's down today as is the market) when Wall Street rewarded shareholders recognizing that BB was better than Mikey.
Some clear observations as a retiree who has time to do some research.
- BB only cares to reward higher ups. Hence getting rid of LTI for labor grades below 16.
- BB thinks 3M is too fat and wants to avoid paying severance PERIOD. He wants a 10 percent voluntary haircut. He doesn't want to repeat the SOLV experience where the new CEO decided (after an activist threat to be replaced) to give Holiday haircuts to 10 percent of SOLV Employees.
- The great 3M died about 25 years ago and is doomed to be macheted into limbs. Safety business is probably next. Mcnerney and his GE ways are BB playbook. Minnesota Nasty is here to stay.
I would assume the rationale is...
- Cost savings (a % or two across tens of thousands of employees does add up)
- A little extra incentive for employees to start to look for employment elsewhere (news flash: you already should be!)
- Executive leadership couldn't care less if you're upset by it, so why not?
I am old enough to remember when 3M would explicitly only "catch you up" to the 95th percentile. To get to midpoint you better be getting some 4s/exceeds on your review.
Was turnover a problem then? Nope. Were there any protests about the company explicitly under-compensating you relative to the market? Nope.
Why that would be is simple to understand - it was a great company back then with high job security and (largely, not in every case) treated employees pretty well, certainly better in most cases than other companies out there at the time. So everyone was OK trading the couple of percentage points of comp for the better job security and treatment. MR and BB did a pretty effective job of changing the last two!
Everyone will get 2.7%
BB is saving a few bucks by sc--wing over the little guy, so they did away with the compa-ratio adjustment this year.
That means if you're under the midpoint, you'll be under it forever.