Realignment for SEC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are people getting this crap? There’s no plan to revamp the sk compensation system.

The plan is for raises to be tied to performance ratings. That is why the rating system is changing. It won't be this cycle but the next one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are people getting this crap? There’s no plan to revamp the sk compensation system.

The plan is for raises to be tied to performance ratings. That is why the rating system is changing. It won't be this cycle but the next one.

I for one sure hope that they go back to letting managers give cash bonuses to top performers. We need more tools to reward people and encourage people to want to get promoted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of me wonders if PA sees me start to have the mental breakdown this is causing he’ll realize how wrong and cruel he is. Doubt it.

He would just tell you to quit.

I am sorry, for whatever that’s worth. I know it sucks and I know many people (not all) really are at the point of desperation.

People will keep leaving. I know many considering jobs who thought they would never leave. Even if it y a small percentage of those people leave, it will be significant. I’m putting in my time and not giving a f@*# about any of the work. I need to use what energy I have on me and my family.

I think the PP doesn’t realize that people quitting on work and not caring about the output is even worse that just quitting. At the same time, however, I am convinced that making people miserable is the whole point of this chairman’s actions.

I keep hoping it is not. From what I hear, people are trying to inform him. But I don’t think he has any frame of reference or experience to have any understanding of our lives. And he 100% doesn’t make the connection on morale and productivity. I’m sure he thinks his new compensation plan with pretty much just bonus money will solve that problem. But as well all know, that money will be handed out with no connection to actual performance.

Is the new compensation plan for SOs or everyone?

Everyone. I think they have to announce it soon. Don’t know details.

My understanding is the new rating system would not affect comp this cycle.

Is the idea that raises would be based on ratings or that there wouldn’t be raises only bonuses based on ratings? The latter is a dick move because it impacts people’s retirement.

This year there was a two tier system. That means that everyone should be treated the same, unless managers are given the option to “reward” their friends. Next year will be different.

So you’d rather have a system where merit is irrelevant? We all know there is a huge difference between people who do just enough to stay employed and people who go above and beyond, both in quality and amount of work.

I’d rather see people who go above and beyond be rewarded, at least when it comes to bonuses if not raises.

Could there be an occasional time where “friendship” more than “merit” comes into play? Sure. But the solution is to try as much as possible to stamp that out rather than say everyone simply gets the same.

I think the union helps in a lot of ways, but I don’t agree with their strong opposition to any sort of merit based distinctions.

To be fair the federal government has historically done a terrible job implementing pay for performance. DoD did something like this many years ago and it failed miserably. I think CFPB also tried this and when they studied it afterwards they found a lot of racial bias in the ratings.

I wouldnt mind giving this a shot if they keep the overall comp pool at a reasonable amount (say GS raise plus at least 1.5%ish to account for no steps in our pay system) and distribute those funds by performance. What I suspect will happen is they will use the lack of transparency to decrease the overall monies available for compensation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of me wonders if PA sees me start to have the mental breakdown this is causing he’ll realize how wrong and cruel he is. Doubt it.

He would just tell you to quit.

I am sorry, for whatever that’s worth. I know it sucks and I know many people (not all) really are at the point of desperation.

People will keep leaving. I know many considering jobs who thought they would never leave. Even if it y a small percentage of those people leave, it will be significant. I’m putting in my time and not giving a f@*# about any of the work. I need to use what energy I have on me and my family.

I think the PP doesn’t realize that people quitting on work and not caring about the output is even worse that just quitting. At the same time, however, I am convinced that making people miserable is the whole point of this chairman’s actions.

I keep hoping it is not. From what I hear, people are trying to inform him. But I don’t think he has any frame of reference or experience to have any understanding of our lives. And he 100% doesn’t make the connection on morale and productivity. I’m sure he thinks his new compensation plan with pretty much just bonus money will solve that problem. But as well all know, that money will be handed out with no connection to actual performance.

Is the new compensation plan for SOs or everyone?

Everyone. I think they have to announce it soon. Don’t know details.

My understanding is the new rating system would not affect comp this cycle.

Is the idea that raises would be based on ratings or that there wouldn’t be raises only bonuses based on ratings? The latter is a dick move because it impacts people’s retirement.

This year there was a two tier system. That means that everyone should be treated the same, unless managers are given the option to “reward” their friends. Next year will be different.

So you’d rather have a system where merit is irrelevant? We all know there is a huge difference between people who do just enough to stay employed and people who go above and beyond, both in quality and amount of work.

I’d rather see people who go above and beyond be rewarded, at least when it comes to bonuses if not raises.

Could there be an occasional time where “friendship” more than “merit” comes into play? Sure. But the solution is to try as much as possible to stamp that out rather than say everyone simply gets the same.

I think the union helps in a lot of ways, but I don’t agree with their strong opposition to any sort of merit based distinctions.

To be fair the federal government has historically done a terrible job implementing pay for performance. DoD did something like this many years ago and it failed miserably. I think CFPB also tried this and when they studied it afterwards they found a lot of racial bias in the ratings.

I wouldnt mind giving this a shot if they keep the overall comp pool at a reasonable amount (say GS raise plus at least 1.5%ish to account for no steps in our pay system) and distribute those funds by performance. What I suspect will happen is they will use the lack of transparency to decrease the overall monies available for compensation.

This is a reasonable take. The lack of step increases like (almost all of) the rest of the fed gov has is important.

While I’m all for bonuses, tying raises to performance, especially if there’s a mandatory curve for ratings, is unfair when you have a small group of very high performers (like my group).

[Anonymous]

Doesn’t the CBA control this issue? Or is that another provision that “doesn’t count”?

[Anonymous]

I never understood how you did bonuses for non profit motivated entities. Its not like a sales goal, hours billed, or widgets created. And I doubt industry wants staff rewarded based on enforcement cases initiated, exams executed, and rules written.

Once you get into some non-measurable contribution, you can’t really differentiate between people well unless there is a clear outlier doing poorly. If everyone is doing well and trying hard, the bonuses create more issues than they solve.

And so many people seem to say they have a coworker that is the lazy outlier but also don’t actually understand what that person does.

At that point its just a mechanism to get people to stay until its paid out. While also creating a shit ton of office gossip and peaking over shoulders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t the CBA control this issue? Or is that another provision that “doesn’t count”?

I am sure the chairman will find “substantive legal concerns” with something to deny staff other benefits.

[Anonymous]

What’s the pay increase? Crickets from the union on this too. Maybe it’s another 4D chess strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s the pay increase? Crickets from the union on this too. Maybe it’s another 4D chess strategy.

seriously dude, stuff it. assume your raise is 0%, and then be happy when you get 1%

PA thinks you're overpaid, anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the pay increase? Crickets from the union on this too. Maybe it’s another 4D chess strategy.

seriously dude, stuff it. assume your raise is 0%, and then be happy when you get 1%

PA thinks you're overpaid, anyway.

Very good argument. You’re smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the pay increase? Crickets from the union on this too. Maybe it’s another 4D chess strategy.

seriously dude, stuff it. assume your raise is 0%, and then be happy when you get 1%

PA thinks you're overpaid, anyway.

Very good argument. You’re smart.

look, by your own admission you aren't a union member and you think the union is useless. The opposite of collective bargaining is individual bargaining, so why aren't you just walking up to PA and asking for your individual pay increase and justifying it to him right then and there? maybe you'll even get it early.

Of course, good luck finding him, I don't think he's been in the office for weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of me wonders if PA sees me start to have the mental breakdown this is causing he’ll realize how wrong and cruel he is. Doubt it.

He would just tell you to quit.

I am sorry, for whatever that’s worth. I know it sucks and I know many people (not all) really are at the point of desperation.

People will keep leaving. I know many considering jobs who thought they would never leave. Even if it y a small percentage of those people leave, it will be significant. I’m putting in my time and not giving a f@*# about any of the work. I need to use what energy I have on me and my family.

I think the PP doesn’t realize that people quitting on work and not caring about the output is even worse that just quitting. At the same time, however, I am convinced that making people miserable is the whole point of this chairman’s actions.

I keep hoping it is not. From what I hear, people are trying to inform him. But I don’t think he has any frame of reference or experience to have any understanding of our lives. And he 100% doesn’t make the connection on morale and productivity. I’m sure he thinks his new compensation plan with pretty much just bonus money will solve that problem. But as well all know, that money will be handed out with no connection to actual performance.

Is the new compensation plan for SOs or everyone?

Everyone. I think they have to announce it soon. Don’t know details.

My understanding is the new rating system would not affect comp this cycle.

Is the idea that raises would be based on ratings or that there wouldn’t be raises only bonuses based on ratings? The latter is a dick move because it impacts people’s retirement.

This year there was a two tier system. That means that everyone should be treated the same, unless managers are given the option to “reward” their friends. Next year will be different.

So you’d rather have a system where merit is irrelevant? We all know there is a huge difference between people who do just enough to stay employed and people who go above and beyond, both in quality and amount of work.

I’d rather see people who go above and beyond be rewarded, at least when it comes to bonuses if not raises.

Could there be an occasional time where “friendship” more than “merit” comes into play? Sure. But the solution is to try as much as possible to stamp that out rather than say everyone simply gets the same.

I think the union helps in a lot of ways, but I don’t agree with their strong opposition to any sort of merit based distinctions.

To be fair the federal government has historically done a terrible job implementing pay for performance. DoD did something like this many years ago and it failed miserably. I think CFPB also tried this and when they studied it afterwards they found a lot of racial bias in the ratings.

I wouldnt mind giving this a shot if they keep the overall comp pool at a reasonable amount (say GS raise plus at least 1.5%ish to account for no steps in our pay system) and distribute those funds by performance. What I suspect will happen is they will use the lack of transparency to decrease the overall monies available for compensation.

This is a reasonable take. The lack of step increases like (almost all of) the rest of the fed gov has is important.

While I’m all for bonuses, tying raises to performance, especially if there’s a mandatory curve for ratings, is unfair when you have a small group of very high performers (like my group).

Agree in theory. The SEC has tried this at least twice but maybe three times and failed to fairly implement a pay for performance system each time. That’s why there is currently a pass fail rating at the moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of me wonders if PA sees me start to have the mental breakdown this is causing he’ll realize how wrong and cruel he is. Doubt it.

He would just tell you to quit.

I am sorry, for whatever that’s worth. I know it sucks and I know many people (not all) really are at the point of desperation.

People will keep leaving. I know many considering jobs who thought they would never leave. Even if it y a small percentage of those people leave, it will be significant. I’m putting in my time and not giving a f@*# about any of the work. I need to use what energy I have on me and my family.

I think the PP doesn’t realize that people quitting on work and not caring about the output is even worse that just quitting. At the same time, however, I am convinced that making people miserable is the whole point of this chairman’s actions.

I keep hoping it is not. From what I hear, people are trying to inform him. But I don’t think he has any frame of reference or experience to have any understanding of our lives. And he 100% doesn’t make the connection on morale and productivity. I’m sure he thinks his new compensation plan with pretty much just bonus money will solve that problem. But as well all know, that money will be handed out with no connection to actual performance.

Is the new compensation plan for SOs or everyone?

Everyone. I think they have to announce it soon. Don’t know details.

My understanding is the new rating system would not affect comp this cycle.

Is the idea that raises would be based on ratings or that there wouldn’t be raises only bonuses based on ratings? The latter is a dick move because it impacts people’s retirement.

This year there was a two tier system. That means that everyone should be treated the same, unless managers are given the option to “reward” their friends. Next year will be different.

So you’d rather have a system where merit is irrelevant? We all know there is a huge difference between people who do just enough to stay employed and people who go above and beyond, both in quality and amount of work.

I’d rather see people who go above and beyond be rewarded, at least when it comes to bonuses if not raises.

Could there be an occasional time where “friendship” more than “merit” comes into play? Sure. But the solution is to try as much as possible to stamp that out rather than say everyone simply gets the same.

I think the union helps in a lot of ways, but I don’t agree with their strong opposition to any sort of merit based distinctions.

To be fair the federal government has historically done a terrible job implementing pay for performance. DoD did something like this many years ago and it failed miserably. I think CFPB also tried this and when they studied it afterwards they found a lot of racial bias in the ratings.

I wouldnt mind giving this a shot if they keep the overall comp pool at a reasonable amount (say GS raise plus at least 1.5%ish to account for no steps in our pay system) and distribute those funds by performance. What I suspect will happen is they will use the lack of transparency to decrease the overall monies available for compensation.

This is a reasonable take. The lack of step increases like (almost all of) the rest of the fed gov has is important.

While I’m all for bonuses, tying raises to performance, especially if there’s a mandatory curve for ratings, is unfair when you have a small group of very high performers (like my group).

We used to have steps and the SEC went to pay bands under Chair Shapiro. It is the same for most agencies that have their own pay scales and certainly other FIRREA agencies. If you are unsatisfied with the SEC’s pay scale and want steps, go back to a GS pay scale agency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of me wonders if PA sees me start to have the mental breakdown this is causing he’ll realize how wrong and cruel he is. Doubt it.

He would just tell you to quit.

I am sorry, for whatever that’s worth. I know it sucks and I know many people (not all) really are at the point of desperation.

People will keep leaving. I know many considering jobs who thought they would never leave. Even if it y a small percentage of those people leave, it will be significant. I’m putting in my time and not giving a f@*# about any of the work. I need to use what energy I have on me and my family.

I think the PP doesn’t realize that people quitting on work and not caring about the output is even worse that just quitting. At the same time, however, I am convinced that making people miserable is the whole point of this chairman’s actions.

I keep hoping it is not. From what I hear, people are trying to inform him. But I don’t think he has any frame of reference or experience to have any understanding of our lives. And he 100% doesn’t make the connection on morale and productivity. I’m sure he thinks his new compensation plan with pretty much just bonus money will solve that problem. But as well all know, that money will be handed out with no connection to actual performance.

Is the new compensation plan for SOs or everyone?

Everyone. I think they have to announce it soon. Don’t know details.

My understanding is the new rating system would not affect comp this cycle.

Is the idea that raises would be based on ratings or that there wouldn’t be raises only bonuses based on ratings? The latter is a dick move because it impacts people’s retirement.

This year there was a two tier system. That means that everyone should be treated the same, unless managers are given the option to “reward” their friends. Next year will be different.

So you’d rather have a system where merit is irrelevant? We all know there is a huge difference between people who do just enough to stay employed and people who go above and beyond, both in quality and amount of work.

I’d rather see people who go above and beyond be rewarded, at least when it comes to bonuses if not raises.

Could there be an occasional time where “friendship” more than “merit” comes into play? Sure. But the solution is to try as much as possible to stamp that out rather than say everyone simply gets the same.

I think the union helps in a lot of ways, but I don’t agree with their strong opposition to any sort of merit based distinctions.

To be fair the federal government has historically done a terrible job implementing pay for performance. DoD did something like this many years ago and it failed miserably. I think CFPB also tried this and when they studied it afterwards they found a lot of racial bias in the ratings.

I wouldnt mind giving this a shot if they keep the overall comp pool at a reasonable amount (say GS raise plus at least 1.5%ish to account for no steps in our pay system) and distribute those funds by performance. What I suspect will happen is they will use the lack of transparency to decrease the overall monies available for compensation.

This is a reasonable take. The lack of step increases like (almost all of) the rest of the fed gov has is important.

While I’m all for bonuses, tying raises to performance, especially if there’s a mandatory curve for ratings, is unfair when you have a small group of very high performers (like my group).

We used to have steps and the SEC went to pay bands under Chair Shapiro. It is the same for most agencies that have their own pay scales and certainly other FIRREA agencies. If you are unsatisfied with the SEC’s pay scale and want steps, go back to a GS pay scale agency.

It doesn’t matter because actual salary raises will be minimal. All available money will be in a bonus pool for our inept managers to play favorites with. There is no managerial accountability so managers have incentive to give to friends.

[Anonymous]

Enforcement folks - any tea? That’s one way to realign…