What is your interpretation of the statement by CFO at kickoff —
“For every employee the bonus structure will shift to reflect the overall company performance”
How is this different from previous years? Just an excuse to water down already meager bonuses?
@177 “Bootlicker”
I’ll take that as an indication that you would rather whine instead of doing the work to create a company where you can make the rules as you see fit.
Name calling is a sign of low intelligence.
The secret love children need good allowances. Remember, they “earned” it.
@mb Bootlicker
Always enough money to heavily bonus the directors and VPs who've been here 20 - 30 - 40 years or more.
Zero transparency when results aren’t public. How can you confirm what is due?
@f3 this is literally how sas does it everywhere but the US and has done it this way for years.
The old raise and bonus practices will likely remain. The illusion of egalitarianism is new pablum for a new generation.
@kv then start your own company and do it however the f#$% you want.
Or keep playing fantasy CEO from the couch.
I've never trusted how raises and bonuses are handled. You'll pay thousands to celebrate 50 years and still end up sc--wing the trusted worker bee.
In R&D we always used the SAS random functions 😁.
One place that I worked at calculated bonuses with a formula that factored in multiple company performance metrics AND individual performance metrics, so if you were a high performer you could still get a bonus, albeit a smaller one.
@er We did not say that SAS practices socialism in general. We said that this specific decision reflects how socialism works. If individual bonuses depend on the group's success, they no longer provide individual incentive.
We were only talking about this one specific practice. Other practices at SAS are perfectly capitalist -- including the right to leave SAS and seek employment elsewhere.
As to the import of this single sentence -- well, that depends on whether they mean what they say.
@eh you guys sure are reaching and being dramatic about a single sentence with no details,
And a private company paying people is not socialism.
@e3 This is how socialism works, and it is likely to have the same negative effects.
"it will shift my bonus more away from individual/team targets and more company level. Personally not a fan as my unit has out performed sas overall."
Is that how socialism works?
this also can disincentivize the over-performing unit
guessing it means if the company overall doesn't hit targets in a particular year, there will be no bonuses at all.
It means that you will be paid for performance. SAS hits revenue and profit goals, bonuses will be funded. If SAS doesn’t, bonuses won’t be. The exact same way all public companies work.
I’m in presales and our bonus is tied to the specific business unit we belong to. A large part is also individual goals we set that can be tied to a deal that closed. A couple years ago they removed one of those goals and replaced it with a corporate metric that was a company wide revenue and profit target. I suspect for people like me it will shift my bonus more away from individual/team targets and more company level. Personally not a fan as my unit has out performed sas overall.
Expect nothing and you won't be disappointed.
Now you guys are mad that you don’t have details (yet) on what it means?
CFO “power” statement from a new CFO. — It fills air time on the grandstand, plus it makes him look important and egalitarian.
Overall company performance? Measured by…?
Some people don't like change
Correct. It means you will only receive change (sans pennies, of course).
"Reflect[ing] the overall company performance" is not different. But "bonus structure will shift" certainly signals change.
Some people don't like change and will leave. That's part of the plan.