Tag: compensation

Posted on

So, who says Generation Z and millennials are anti-leadership job-hoppers?

millennials Generation Z

There are several stereotypes that have been placed on millennials and Generation Z that are just not true, according to new research.

Bellevue University’s Human Capital Lab partnered with Human Capital Media’s research and advisory group to conduct a study of more than 2,000 employees over a range of five generations to observe how their views vary regarding leadership in the workplace.

Generation Z millennials

“With five generations in the workforce and a diverse range of perceived wisdom about what each generation expects from leaders and how they view their own prospects for leadership, this research set out to put some solid data behind how generational behavior and expectations related to leadership vary,” said Michelle Eppler, director of Human Capital Lab and dean of the College of Continuing and Professional Studies at Bellevue University, located in Bellevue, Nebraska.

When it comes to why companies are so obsessed with generational behavior variances, there are many potential contributing factors.

“One may be that it appears to be a convenient way to sort populations — and there is some evidence that experience, although not the same thing, does have a slight impact in how one views leadership,” Eppler said in an email statement. “In the current climate of nearly full employment, retention has become even more vital and companies are constantly searching for ways to enhance employee engagement, reduce costs and increase efficiencies by lowering their attrition rates.”

The leadership preferences survey was delivered online to 2,009 respondents through Survata, a brand intelligence research company. The sample was balanced by age, gender and educational attainment.

“We made sure that we had equal numbers of respondents from different age groups, and also that we had representation from respondents without a college degree, with a college degree and in addition, 20 percent of respondents had a master’s degree or higher,” said Sarah Kimmel, vice president of research at Human Capital Media. Some 60 percent of the respondents were women and 40 percent were men. All of the respondents were from North America, ranging in between 18 and 65 in age, Kimmel said.

Organizations have heavily focused on benefits and different generations with the assumption that generations have different requirements when it comes to benefits. The common stereotypical traits that millennials and Generation Z have been labeled with have been driving policy for some to prepare for future workforce needs. “The two big key takeaways were that, in terms of generational preferences, age is not actually as determining as you might think,” Kimmel said.

According to the study, the majority of employees — regardless of which generation — are actually driven by compensation, have leadership ambitions and want to stay and build or retain their careers with one organization. Eppler said that the study’s findings may serve as exciting consequences for employers.

“If millennials and Generation Z want to stay, but also want a career path that transitions to a leadership role, then adequate compensation, coupled with learning and development in the skills and behaviors they associate with good leaders should improve retention,” Eppler said. “Companies that invest in these areas are more likely to be more confident in the long-term benefits of adequate compensation and leadership development.

Every age group within the study all preferred the same top three qualities in a leader; they must be a good communicator, honest and respectful. “Communication is integral, according to the study,” said Kimmel.

It is often thought that younger generations aren’t as interested in leadership positions, but the study suggests the opposite. 45- to 54-year-olds are twice as likely (36 percent) to say that they are not interested in leadership positions than 25- to 34-year-olds are (13 percent). A total of 85 percent say that they would prefer to stay with their current organization for their entire career, and half of those say they are willing to stay under the right conditions. The only group that showed the most interest in leaving were those between the ages of 18-24 years old. “If you think about it, those are the people just out of school or just starting out in their career, so of course they might be leaving their organization — they’re kind of in their starter job,” Kimmel said. “Over the age of 24, its almost identical across every single age group. People want to stay.”

One thing that stuck out to Eppler about this study’s results was how women are less likely to currently be in a leadership position or ready for leadership (47 percent) than are men (60 percent). Eppler said that this could possibly be due to women being more likely to wait until they have the required skill sets for leadership positions or due to the amount of non-work responsibilities that function as career obstacles. Women were also 10 percent less likely to say that they expect a promotion at their current employer.

According to the study, 42 percent of men say that their employer provides on the job development times for them compared to women (35 percent). Women are more likely to say they are given stretch assignments (23 percent) than men (19 percent). However, they are equally likely to be given leadership training, coaching and mentoring and tuition reimbursement.

“That’s great news, as it points to there not being a lot of structural bias in leadership development programs,” Kimmel said.

Said Eppler, “The one thing the study tells us, is we need to do more to understand what is behind this lack of trust data point women have and examine what are effective approaches within the workplace that successfully address it.”

Posted on

Court Drills Company Over Bonus Pay

wage and hour law compliance, wages

Bristol Excavating entered into an agreement with Talisman Energy. Talisman paid all workers on its drilling sites bonuses for safety, efficiency and completion of work.

At some point, Talisman and Bristol agreed that Bristol’s workers were eligible to receive the bonuses; however, this arrangement was never codified. The Labor Department found Bristol should have included the bonuses in workers’ regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime compensation. In rejecting this, the Third Circuit emphasized an employee’s regular rate of pay is between the employer and employee.

Then it assessed the employer’s involvement in the bonus program: (1) whether the specific requirements for receiving the payment are known by the employees in advance of their performing relevant work; (2) whether the payment is for a reasonably specific amount; (3) whether the employer’s facilitation of the payment is significantly more than serving as a pass through vehicle. In applying the test, the Third Circuit found there was not enough clarity about the requirements or amounts of the efficiency or completion of work bonuses to require Bristol to include these bonuses in overtime compensation.

However, the terms of the safety bonus were sufficiently clear. Bristol employees knew the criteria for earning the bonus and how much they would receive, and Bristol invoiced Talisman for payment of the safety bonuses on behalf of its employees.

Bristol should have included the bonuses in its employees’ regular rate of pay. Sec’y United States Dep’t of Labor v. Bristol Excavating Inc., No. 17-3663, 2019 WL 3926937 (3d Cir. Aug. 20, 2019).

IMPACT: Employers with leased employees in the Third Circuit (New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania) should audit their compensation practices in light of the new test announced in this case.

Posted on

DailyPay Inks Deal With Kronos to Join Workforce Dimensions Platform

Daily pay benefit provider DailyPay joined the Kronos Inc.’s Workforce Dimensions Technology Partner Network.

According to a Nov. 7 release, through a custom API integration with DailyPay, Kronos can share data that enable DailyPay to calculate each enrolled employee’s available balance and facilitate the instant transfer of funds when an employee requests it.

Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Employers can now offer DailyPay — a 2019 Workforce Optimas Awards winner in the Innovation category — as part of the burgeoning on-demand pay benefit offerings. According to the release, DailyPay is fully compliant with wage and labor laws in all 50 states and allows employees “the freedom to exert control over the timing of their pay and to feel more secure financially.”
According to the Kronos website, other Workforce Dimensions partners include financial wellness provider Branch, Cornerstone Learning and work opportunity tax credit processor HireCredit.

“We are excited to work with Kronos to provide a life-altering benefit that helps the 78 percent of Americans who are living paycheck to paycheck,” said Jason Lee, CEO of New York-based DailyPay, which was founded in 2015. “Through the Kronos-DailyPay relationship, companies have the opportunity to streamline their payroll process and allow their employees to access the money they’ve earned prior to their next payday.”

Workforce Dimensions from Kronos is described as the “first next-generation workforce management solution. Cloud-native, mobile-native, and powered by artificial intelligence, it delivers real-time analytics to drive in-the-moment decisions to unburden managers from time-consuming, low-value tasks and empower employees with an engaging experience.”

“Workforce Dimensions is built on a completely open and extensible platform, enabling innovative integrations with partners, including DailyPay, that empower employees in ways that simply are not possible with legacy solutions,” said Mike May, senior director, Workforce Dimensions Technology Partner Network, Kronos, in the Nov. 7 release. “Providing a great technology experience not only drives user adoption, but it also helps organizations to engage and retain their workforce.”

Posted on

Jimmy John’s No-Poach Policy Leaves Bad Taste

employment law, labor law, overtime records

Sylas Butler was an employee for a Jimmy John’s sandwiches franchise in Illinois.

After Butler’s hours were reduced, he attempted to transfer to another Jimmy John’s franchise. He discovered he could not transfer because the franchises have contracts with Jimmy John’s corporate that contain “no poach agreements,” — agreements that prohibit franchisees from hiring each other’s employees.

Butler brought a class-action lawsuit on behalf of current and former Jimmy John’s employees, alleging the sandwich company violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, and committed unfair and deceptive business practices under state law. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois held that Butler stated a valid claim under the Sherman Act and state law.

The court rejected Jimmy John’s argument that the no-poach agreements were merely “vertical” restraints on trade between Jimmy John’s corporate and franchisees, and not “horizontal” restraints upon trade between competitors, which are typically illegal.

The effect of the no-poach agreements was horizontal, as under the contract, the franchisees had the ability to enforce the no-poach agreements against each other as third-party beneficiaries. Butler v. Jimmy John’s Franchise, LLC, 331 F. Supp. 3d 786 (S.D. Ill. 2018).

IMPACT: Courts are increasingly skeptical of no-poach agreements that restrict the ability of employees to seek gainful employment.

Posted on

Unlimited Paid Time Off Is a Deceptive Ploy in Today’s Workplace

unlimited paid time off

Employees may be lured by the idea of unlimited paid time off but the reality is unlimited paid time off is often an egregious fabrication that employers tell their workforce.

What is usually lost in the conversation is what employees are forced to give up when their organization decides to implement an unlimited system. There are plenty of legitimate business reasons to stop offering — and stop being enamored by — the allure of the unlimited PTO promise.

“It’s great to not have to pay out [accrued vacation] when people leave,” said Maggie Grover, a partner at Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP in an interview with website HR Dive. “Because people are so connected and working even when they’re technically off, they tend to take fewer full vacation days. So even if you cap a vacation bank at 1.5 or 2 times the annual accrual amount, the payout at the end of the employment relationship can still be significant.” And just to note, not all states require employers to pay out accrued vacation.

Recognizing that this is a large financial obligation, many companies are relieving themselves from these obligations by offering unlimited policies.

Employees also can’t save or accrue “unlimited” vacation time to use next year. When it comes time to transition from the company, the employer has no obligation to pay out the extra hours of productivity that were used in lieu of taking a break.

According to outplacement firm RiseSmart, an unlimited PTO policy “significantly reduces the costs of having to pay employees for unused PTO and may be one of the most compelling factors for companies considering an unlimited PTO policy.”

Unlimited vacation is a work-around, plain and simple. By offering this perk, companies get away from tracking and accruing a liability that in some states, once accrued, is considered earned wages. And once wages are considered earned, they must be paid out at departure or termination.

 Less Time Off for Employees

Some studies show that American employees today often end up taking little or no more time off in an “unlimited” system compared to when they have a set number of days off each year.

In a study by HR platform Namely, research suggests that employees with “unlimited” vacation actually take fewer days off (13) on average than those with a limited number (15).

 Unlimited PTO Is No Win-Win for Today’s Talent 

Unlimited PTO sounds generous on a job description, but employees by and large end up getting paid less with no value attributed to their PTO while companies gain more of their employees’ productivity.

This latest benefits trend is harming the workforce and leading mass groups of employees to forfeit the second most important job benefit with no way to monetize or reutilize the value of their PTO.

Companies need to ask if they’re making these changes for employees or for their bottom line. If, let’s say, employees are using 100 percent of their PTO and a company wants to decrease expenses, then perhaps such a program makes sense. However, this is generally not the case today. Employees thus leave billions of dollars worth of unused PTO on the table.

Are benefits a meaningful way to attract, engage and retain employees? Absolutely.

Will unlimited PTO be a mainstay of the future of work? Absolutely not.

Instead of unlimited, employers — and talent — should be thinking in terms of flexible, diverse and portable benefits to mirror the workforce today.

Posted on

Why Was a Stadium Full of People in France Chanting ‘EQUAL PAY’?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Indisputable fact No. 1: Women and men should earn the same pay for the same work.

Indisputable fact No. 2: The players on the United States women’s national soccer team earn substantially less than their counterparts on the men’s team

The Equal Pay Act requires that an employer pay its male and female employees equal pay for equal work. The jobs need not be identical, but they must be substantially equal. Substantial equality is measured by job content, not job titles.

The Act is a strict liability law, which means that intent does not matter. If a woman is paid less than male for substantially similar work, then the law has been violated, regardless of the employer’s intent.

This strict liability, however, does not mean that pay disparities always equal liability. The Equal Pay Act has several built-in defenses, including seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production, or any other factor other than sex.

Which brings us to indisputable fact No. 2, and the stadium chanting “equal pay.”

Two things of note happened in the U.S. soccer world on Sunday. The women won their fourth World Cup title, dominating the entire tournament, including the Netherlands 2-0 in the final. Meanwhile, the men lost the CONCACAF Gold Cup final 1-0 to Mexico.

The women’s team currently is engaged in a gender discrimination lawsuit against the United States Soccer Federation, claiming that the organization pays its male players way more than its female players. How much more? According to documents obtained by the Guardian, for example, each player on the U.S. women’s national team could receive more than $260,000 for winning the Women’s World Cup; each player on the men’s national team could earn more than four times that amount for winning the World Cup.

Last I checked, $260,869 does not equal $1,114,429. That’s a pay gap. Which could be legal under the Equal Pay Act, but only if it’s based on a factor other than sex. And this is where I plead ignorance. U.S. Soccer says that any pay differences are “based on differences in aggregated revenue.” I have no idea whether that’s true or false, but if true it might qualify as a “factor other than sex.”

What I do know, however, is that U.S. Soccer cannot justify these pay differences based on merit or success. The FIFA Women’s World Cup has been held eight times — the U.S. women’s team has won four of them, and has never placed worse than third. In the same time frame, the men’s team failed to even qualify for the 2018 World Cup and has never finished better than the quarter-finals (once, in 2002). The U.S. women have also won four Olympic gold medals, nine out of 10 CONCACAF Women’s Gold Cups, and are the No. 1 ranked team in world.

And, on the same day the women’s team won the World Cup, the men’s team lost the CONCACAF Gold Cup final (no offense to North American. Caribbean, and Central American soccer, but winning the CONCACAF Gold Cup is the equivalent of a AAA baseball team winning its league — it’s nice to win, but you’re not beating the best players on the best teams in world).

Based on results, it seems to me that not only should the women’s team be paid equally with the men’s team, but that there exists a great argument for the scale to be flipped, with the women’s team earning substantially more than do their male counterparts.

So, soccer fans and legal scholars, educate me. Why are the women paid so much less than the men?

I want to understand. Help me understand.

Posted on

Thanks for the Financial Advice, But …

Andie Burjek, Working Well blog

There was a lot of upheaval on Twitter earlier this week for JPMorgan, which tweeted something many people found frustrating.

The bank has since deleted the tweet, but here’s the text that went along with it:

You: why is my balance so low
Bank account: make coffee at home
Bank account: eat food that’s already in the fridge
Bank account: you don’t need a cab, it’s only three blocks
You: I guess we’ll never know
Bank account: seriously?
#MondayMotivation

“JPMorgan’s tweet demonstrated a stunning tone-deafness about the economic realities facing ordinary Americans — including the big bank’s own minimum wage employees,” according to the LA Times. The article went on to quote a personal finance expert who says the genre of personal finance has long been discredited.

I’m reminded of an op-ed I read on Vice last year. The frustrated author wrote: “Sometime last year, I started frequently googling ‘why am I poor’ and ‘how do I stop being poor.’ Every result insisted the problem is I go out too much (I don’t go out, I’m too tired), I don’t have a savings account (I don’t have enough kick around cash to open a savings account), or I’m not planning my money right (I plan to pay my rent and then cry in a corner until my next paycheck, does that count?) … Financial advice is geared toward the financially stable who make bad financial choices, like investing in bitcoin this year or getting bangs after a breakup.”

I believe there is a lesson here for companies that already have or are considering financial wellness programs. Mostly, if you’re not paying your employees enough (like many minimum-wage employees or some entry-level employees), financial advice could come across as pretty much nonsense. See the Vice article above.

I would agree with that. I’m reminded of a great Twitter thread I saw a few weeks ago.

Responses included, “Ah that’s great because my landlord just started accepting snacks for rent payments.” Also, “What’s amazing is employers pitch these things as benefits, and not like, I dunno, good health coverage or a retirement plan.” Also, “my starting salary at entry level was $36k… 15 YEARS AGO.”

And, my favorite:

It’s a good reminder that things organizations call “perks” won’t appeal to people who aren’t making enough money. Trying to push “financial advice” as a perk to someone who’s living paycheck-to-paycheck or someone who’s seeing everyday expenses continuously rise while their salary stays pretty much the same, for example, will realistically solicit a much more bitter reaction than you’d hope for.

I’m not saying financial wellness programs and free financial advice have zero value, but they’re a tiny piece in the puzzle. They address a symptom (money problems), not the cause. People have bills, debt, student loans and medical bills to pay, and salaries have not been rising at the same rate as everything else. People’s money problems exist in this broader environment where everything (including education) costs more, and fair compensation is more useful for employees than free advice.

As someone relatively early in her career (who hopefully will be making much more money as I grow older), I do want to acknowledge that money advice can be helpful. My parents and other family members have given me helpful, necessary guidance over the years, and I’m very thankful for that. However, even I understand that personal spending habits are just one aspect of how you’re doing financially.

There are also these macro factors that cannot be ignored.

Also in Working Well: Expanding Employee Access to Mental Health Care

Posted on

Tie Comp and Performance Management to Attract and Keep Employees

WF_0916_ONLINE_Salary_Image_307
A pay for performance program can be instrumental to a company’s talent strategy.

An effective compensation strategy is integral in attracting new talent and retaining and motivating the best performers. Yet, if not done appropriately, the way in which a company compensates its employees can lead to a number of negative effects.

Compensation should never be a guessing game or one based on gut feel, but rather should be based on a solid foundation of actual data. Data that needs to be assessed include items such as the company’s position against the market as it relates to wage rates, the company’s desired market position on wages, the company’s overall compensation philosophy, and available resources that the organization has to reward employees. It is with this data-informed foundation that more companies today are using a pay for performance program to guide their compensation decisions.

A pay for performance program can be instrumental to a company’s talent strategy; when employees are recognized for their work through increased compensation, they will be more likely to be engaged and continue working at their best.

Read: Salary Compression and Pay for Performance

The challenge for many employers, however, lies in determining which positions should be eligible for performance-based salary increases and how much they should receive.

Many would contend that pay for performance is where two employees holding the same job and performing at the same performance level should get the same increase regardless of where they are paid in their respective salary range, such as all employees rated a “3” would receive a 2 percent increase and all employees rated a “1” would receive a 4 percent increase. However, this is not pay for performance, but rather increase for performance. By basing pay for performance on additional data — not just performance data but also company budgets and competitive market position — companies can make compensation a critical competitive differentiator.

Now let’s define what a true pay for performance system is. A pay for performance system looks not only at your performance level but also at your compensation level as well. For companies seeking to utilize data to create an effective pay for performance program, there are three main steps to get it right.

Three Steps to Implementing a Pay for Performance System

  1. Measure employee performance. Most companies rely on a performance management system offering quantifiable metrics to determine how employees are performing. Key to doing this successfully is to calibrate performance criteria with managers, allowing them the ability to subjectively identify those who are exceeding expectations, those who are meeting expectations and those under-performing. Calibration can be a time-consuming exercise but is critical in ensuring that performance is managed consistently across the company.
  1. Appropriately allocate the compensation budget. Once the company has calibrated performance criteria and assessed their employees against the same criteria, the next step is to determine which employees will receive an increase and by how much, based on market position and desired market position. For instance, you may decide to increase the salary for some job families that are further behind the market, or job families you deem more critical to the success of the organization.

In addition to looking at current market position for specific jobs or job families, you should also be assessing trends in the markets as some job families may be moving faster than others. We have found that technical positions tend to move at a faster rate than non-technical positions. As an example, we looked at our CompAnalyst Market Data rates for software engineers and accountants and compared the movement of the rates for those jobs between July 2015 and July 2016.

While software engineers levels 1-3 went up by approximately 2.3 percent, we found the market rates for accountants levels 1-3 dropped by 1.7 percent. Since the market rate for software engineers is moving faster, a company should seek to increase compensation for these job families. Certainly, we can see that we should be allocating more to software engineers than accountants in order to keep pace with the market movement.

Understanding where you stand and what the market is doing allows you to allocate precious compensation dollars appropriately, such that you are not overpaying the slower moving positions and underpaying the faster moving ones.

  1. Connect compensation to performance. Use technology to measure and analyze internal compensation practices against market rates by creating a salary increase matrix — a function of how much an individual is paid and their performance level. Doing so will ensure that an employee’s pay is moved toward the appropriate position in their salary range based on their individual performance and the movement of their position in the market as a whole.

Utilizing a pay for performance system, you may find instances where an individual might receive what I would refer to as a “0 percent merit” increase, even if they are meeting performance expectations. This would be appropriate when an individual’s performance level is eclipsed by their pay.

As an example, an employee who is meeting the expectations of their job but is paid in the upper part of a salary range would be a situation where a “0 percent merit” may be appropriate. While it may be difficult to tell an employee they’re not getting a salary increase, I would submit the more difficult discussion would be explaining to company leadership why top performers in the most business-critical positions are leaving the company.

What to Keep in Mind When Implementing Pay for Performance

The ability to use relevant data to tie compensation to performance management is crucial to developing and retaining a high-performing workforce, while ensuring compensation is aligned with company budgets.

Key to success is underscoring the focus on pay for performance rather than increase for performance. Giving all employees extra compensation for doing their job isn’t as effective as basing their increase on both their current pay and performance levels. By leveraging real-time performance data, the company has a defensible way to determine how much each employee should receive. This will help to differentially reward top performers, while ensuring appropriate allocation of increased dollars to all other employees. It will also help to spur performance improvements; when employees understand that any increase will be based on their performance, they are likely to strive to work at their best to receive the maximum increase.

Just as important is understanding the market. To utilize pay for performance most effectively, the company must remain aware of how the market is moving for its job families, and ensuring the compensation strategy reflects such movements. Being able to track which roles are increasing in value and adjusting compensation accordingly will ensure crucial decisions around compensation are based on actual data.

Getting Pay for Performance Right

As compensation is often a company’s biggest expense, it is critical that companies get it right. Leveraging data on compensation rates and performance alike and ensuring alignment with the company budget is key to striking that balance. With the insight into what employees are currently making, the market rates of their positions and their individual performance, the company can make informed decisions on how best to allocate its compensation dollars. As a result, the company can ensure it pays its employees based on the value they bring to their organization.

 

Posted on

Sources: UAW to Give Up Cost-of-Living Allowances, Bonuses

More details emerged Wednesday, February 18, on the concessions made by the United Auto Workers to the Detroit Three automakers in advance of Tuesday’s viability-plan filings by General Motors and Chrysler.

The new agreements call on workers to give up lump-sum bonuses over the next two years and their cost-of-living allowances, said two UAW sources familiar with the talks. The contracts also limit overtime pay and supplemental unemployment, the sources said.

At Chrysler, workers also will forfeit a $600 Christmas bonus, the sources said. Automotive News first reported the concessions on bonuses, overtime and supplemental unemployment Tuesday.

Detroit Three and UAW officials are keeping mum on the agreements until workers have an opportunity to vote on the provisions. Details about the concessions were not released when GM and Chrysler revealed the viability plans to the U.S. Treasury Department.

UAW vice president Bob King and GM manufacturing and labor chief Gary Cowger declined to comment when asked about the changes at an event Wednesday in suburban Detroit.

Still left to be negotiated is future funding of retiree health care trusts. Loan provisions require the union to take carmaker equity in lieu of cash for half the remaining money owed the multibillion-dollar voluntary employees’ beneficiary associations.

In the case of GM, the UAW is being asked to take GM equity for half of the $20 billion that the carmaker owes the VEBAs.

Nevertheless, the UAW engaged Detroit Three negotiators in marathon bargaining over the past week to meet the filing deadline for the viability plan. As a requirement of $17.4 billion in federal rescue loans, GM and Chrysler must bring their work rules and labor costs in line with their Japanese counterparts in the U.S.

Although Ford isn’t getting loans, it may ask for a $9 billion line of credit and wanted to be a part of a contract pattern to stay competitive with Chrysler and GM. Ford said the UAW agreement would help it avoid asking for financial assistance.

In the plans released Tuesday, GM and Chrysler said they would need up to $21.6 billion to weather the current dismal sales climate.

The Detroit Three got the UAW to move on several fronts, one of the sources said. Instead of paying overtime for work beyond eight hours, they will pay overtime only for work beyond 40 hours during a week, the source said.

The union gave up two of the four lump-sum bonuses due workers during the four-year contract, the sources said.

Supplemental unemployment benefits, or SUB, also have been limited.

Idled workers with more than 20 years of service can collect SUB pay for 52 weeks at the traditional 72 percent of gross pay and another 52 weeks at half pay, the source said. Workers with less than 20 years get 72 percent SUB pay for 39 weeks and half pay for an additional 39 weeks, the source said.

Those SUB provisions are all that UAW members can get now that the Jobs Bank has been eliminated. The Jobs Bank was a program that guaranteed idled workers 95 percent of pay and full benefits indefinitely if no other job could be found for them.

Chrysler and GM were required by the 2007 contract to pay up to $4 billion for the Jobs Bank and SUB pay during the four-year agreement.

Details of total cost savings have not been made public.

Filed by David Barkholz of Automotive News, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.

 

Posted on

Sample performance appraisal for exempt employees

performance measurement, performance appraisal

Performance Appraisal for Exempt Employees

 

 

Name: _______________
Position: _______________
Location: _______________
Supervisor: _______________
Reviewer: _______________
Period Ending: _______________

PERFORMANCE RATINGS:

  1. Exceptional
  2. Above Expectations
  3. Meets Expectations
  4. Needs Improvement
  5. N/A — Not applicable
PERFORMANCE RATING DEFINITION
Exceptional: Consistent performance substantially exceeding normal expectations for total job.
Above Expectations: Frequently exceeds normal performance expectations for key job tasks.
Meets Expectations: Meets normal job requirements in accordance with established standards and may exceed requirements for some job tasks.
Needs Improvement: Overall performance acceptable but improvement needed in one or more significant aspects of job.

 

All evaluations must be supported with specific comments, and all “Overall Evaluations” (see below) of Exceptional and Above Expectations must include specific examples to support the ratings given. When Needs Improvement is the performance rating, attach a written plan to improve performance to this review and enter the Next Review Date in the space provided.

 

PERFORMANCE RESULTS: Achieves expected quality and quantity of output. Places greatest effort on most important aspects of job. Does work on-time, on-budget without sacrificing performance goals or standards.

 

RATING:

 

 

 

COOPERATION/TEAMWORK: Willingly accepts assignments. Able to work on or with teams to cooperatively reach goals.

 

RATING:

 

 

 

INITIATIVE: Self-starter who willingly puts forth effort and time and performs tasks with a minimum of supervision. Begins to solve problems within scope of responsibility as soon as they are apparent. Advises supervisor of current or anticipated problems. Able to apply job knowledge to produce innovations in work process or product.

 

RATING:

 

 

 

ORGANIZING AND PLANNING: Resolves conflicting priorities and schedules with peers and other staff. Performs effectively under pressure and deadlines. Effectively uses time and resources to accomplish work. Will shaft strategy, make decisions, obtain the aid of others to achieve objectives.

 

RATING:

 

 

COMMUNICATION: Verbal and written communications are clear, concise and accurate. Appropriately documents work so others can find work in progress and historical information about the job.

 

RATING:

 

 

 

INTERPERSONAL SKILLS: Interacts productively with others in formal and informal groups both within and outside the company; is receptive to differing ideas and adjusts to the different work styles of others.

 

RATING:

 

 

 

 

For Supervisors, Managers, and/or
Sales Related positions include the following:

SUPERVISION AND LEADERSHIP: Effectively leads and develops staff. Effectively directs staff and provides ongoing feedback. Accurately evaluates performance, matches abilities and job requirements, establishes an effective working relationship, and acts as a positive model for others. Assures a positive working environment in compliance with company standards.

 

RATING:

 

 

 

SALES/MARKETING: Obtains new work (e.g. listings, corporate accounts, etc.) from both existing clients and new clients. Makes marketing suggestions and effectively implements existing marketing programs.

 

RATING:

 

 

 

OTHER (Define and rate another significant performance factor if appropriate)

 

RATING:

 

 

 

PERFORMANCE PLAN FOR NEXT PERIOD (Include expected accomplishments and measurement criteria)

 

 

DEVELOPMENT NEEDS (Areas of knowledge or skill to develop that will improve job performance)

 

 

Plan for how Supervisor will specifically assist employee to maintain or improve performance:

 

 

 

OVERALL EVALUATION:

 

EXCEPTIONAL
ABOVE EXPECTATION
MEETS EXPECTATIONS

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT (Requires written improvement plan of maximum 6 months)

Next Review Date and/or Other Actions:

 

 

SUPERVISOR’S OR EMPLOYEE COMMENTS (If needed, attach additional sheet)

 

 

(Employee’s signature indicates that evaluation has been discussed with the supervisor. It does not necessarily signify agreement).

 

Signatures:

Immediate Supervisor:
Date:

Reviewer’s Manager:
Date:

Employee:
Date:

 

The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion.