Thursday, February 19, 2009
A time comes when silence is betrayal...
Dear Boss,
Rumor has it that you'll be getting your Performance Bonus on Friday. I just wanted you to know that I don't begrudge you the award because I know that you didn't have much to do with the Execs doctoring the performance numbers to get a larger bonus than our Company's real performance should have afforded.
I understand that you really do appreciate the sacrifice your workers gave in going to three-day workweeks and we, in turn, appreciate the hard work and effort you put in to try to convince your boss that your people deserved a performance bonus as well.
Perhaps we can have a discussion during our next crew meeting about your attempts to get our Execs to do the right thing and what we might do, together, the next time this happens, because we both know it will.
-- Bill, who understands the difference between true "leadership" and mere "command"...
Comments:
http://www.kansas.com/opinion/letters//story/707951.html
A good section from the above letter to the editor illustrates only a portion of the weaknesses in your argument:
"...Most of those who say "Take the bonus from them" are workers who have a union negotiate their wages, who are in turn derided by those without union representation. Given the recent strikes, I doubt the hourly or salaried workers would be willing to take a pay cut simply because someone making less than them believes their union-negotiated wages are inflated and unfair.
In short, if you remove part of the compensation package executives earn, you remove the incentive to achieve higher goals. Why would a worker put in extra effort if it never resulted in just compensation?
Why must you insist on punishing success?"
Assuming you actually want to understand (which may or may not be a stretch - I can't read your mind) the light will never dawn until you turn loose of jealously and regret. The "why them" question is clearly just misdirection, when what you should be asking yourself is "why not us next time?"
A good section from the above letter to the editor illustrates only a portion of the weaknesses in your argument:
"...Most of those who say "Take the bonus from them" are workers who have a union negotiate their wages, who are in turn derided by those without union representation. Given the recent strikes, I doubt the hourly or salaried workers would be willing to take a pay cut simply because someone making less than them believes their union-negotiated wages are inflated and unfair.
In short, if you remove part of the compensation package executives earn, you remove the incentive to achieve higher goals. Why would a worker put in extra effort if it never resulted in just compensation?
Why must you insist on punishing success?"
Assuming you actually want to understand (which may or may not be a stretch - I can't read your mind) the light will never dawn until you turn loose of jealously and regret. The "why them" question is clearly just misdirection, when what you should be asking yourself is "why not us next time?"
# posted by 
: 12:46 PM
: 12:46 PM
Nice selective and misdirecting pullquote, "more," but that's not the part of the author's opinion letter that's pertinent to my argument.
Just above the section you quote the author states...
The compensation bonuses are the result of an agreement between executives and their employer, negotiated far in advance and based on the financial performance of the company as a measure of the executives' job performance. [emphasis mine]
...which isn't what happened in the instant situation: our Execs weren't satisfied with the "agreement... negotiated far in advance" and had to change the numbers to get more than their original agreement afforded.
When I pointed this out to the letter's author -- my pal, Marlon Knapp, an employee in the Tooling organization I support -- he readily admitted that doctoring the books to get more of a bonus than the Execs agreed to looked bad and was not what he was defending in his opinion letter on Sunday.
As to not being able to read my mind, it seems you're also unable to read my words, because I've been quite clear in my essays, below, that I'm neither jealous of the expected larger bonuses for Execs nor regretful over the bonus structure we negotiated for ourselves. What you mistake for jealousy and regret is mere outrage at some folks in charge who claim to be "leaders" but seem little more than pretenders to "noblesse" without even the slightest attempt at "oblige"...
Just above the section you quote the author states...
The compensation bonuses are the result of an agreement between executives and their employer, negotiated far in advance and based on the financial performance of the company as a measure of the executives' job performance. [emphasis mine]
...which isn't what happened in the instant situation: our Execs weren't satisfied with the "agreement... negotiated far in advance" and had to change the numbers to get more than their original agreement afforded.
When I pointed this out to the letter's author -- my pal, Marlon Knapp, an employee in the Tooling organization I support -- he readily admitted that doctoring the books to get more of a bonus than the Execs agreed to looked bad and was not what he was defending in his opinion letter on Sunday.
As to not being able to read my mind, it seems you're also unable to read my words, because I've been quite clear in my essays, below, that I'm neither jealous of the expected larger bonuses for Execs nor regretful over the bonus structure we negotiated for ourselves. What you mistake for jealousy and regret is mere outrage at some folks in charge who claim to be "leaders" but seem little more than pretenders to "noblesse" without even the slightest attempt at "oblige"...
unit,
It's not that I don't get your point. I do. It's just that your continued focus on it misses the forest for the trees. Does the CEO not have a board to report to? Did the board not sign off on this change that so rankles you? Isn't that the same structure at all public companies? Furthermore we have all heard this CEO and others say time and time again that they want to have every employee measured on the same scale. The only thing standing in the way of creating that "level playing field" you claim to want so badly... is you. Participation offered. Participation refused. Excuses don't really matter when the answer is just no. When the answer changes your world can change. All the complaints in the world about unfairness won't change a thing, and just sound like "woulda shoulda coulda" to me.
It's not that I don't get your point. I do. It's just that your continued focus on it misses the forest for the trees. Does the CEO not have a board to report to? Did the board not sign off on this change that so rankles you? Isn't that the same structure at all public companies? Furthermore we have all heard this CEO and others say time and time again that they want to have every employee measured on the same scale. The only thing standing in the way of creating that "level playing field" you claim to want so badly... is you. Participation offered. Participation refused. Excuses don't really matter when the answer is just no. When the answer changes your world can change. All the complaints in the world about unfairness won't change a thing, and just sound like "woulda shoulda coulda" to me.
# posted by : 12:26 PM
: 12:26 PM
.
WTF?!
You say you get my point but then you immediately follow that up with "...we have all heard this CEO and others say time and time again that they want to have every employee measured on the same scale... [but you] refused"
It wasn't we who refused: with just which part of "the maximums would still differ -- non-reps getting up to 40 days pay while union employees were limited to only 15, max -- but the metrics for payout would be identical" in my "I'll... type... slower..." essay, below, are you having difficulty comprehending? For about the 5,287,641st time, we agreed to the same measurement scale; that our Executives couldn't live with that agreement and changed theirs, alone, reflects poorly on them, not us.
Post a Comment
WTF?!
You say you get my point but then you immediately follow that up with "...we have all heard this CEO and others say time and time again that they want to have every employee measured on the same scale... [but you] refused"
It wasn't we who refused: with just which part of "the maximums would still differ -- non-reps getting up to 40 days pay while union employees were limited to only 15, max -- but the metrics for payout would be identical" in my "I'll... type... slower..." essay, below, are you having difficulty comprehending? For about the 5,287,641st time, we agreed to the same measurement scale; that our Executives couldn't live with that agreement and changed theirs, alone, reflects poorly on them, not us.
