Originally posted by: dullard
I'll PM it. I'd rather not have that info floating around the internet.Originally posted by: Chaotic42
May I ask how much?
Woot. :frown:As previously announced by HHS, President Bush signed an Executive Order on March 3, 2004, that provides for a 2.7 percent across-the-board increase in 2004 in the rates of basic pay for the General Schedule. The President's Executive order also includes a locality pay increase of approximately 1.4 percent. Both increases are retroactive to January 11, 2004.
Retroactive processing of salary payments is a major undertaking that requires significant software changes to the automated personnel and pay systems, as well as extensive quality assurance testing. It is further complicated by the fact that many employees have had intervening personnel actions processed which impact their pay. This retroactive authorization will also require adjustments to retirement contributions and other payroll deductions.
Originally posted by: Shanti
My company is big on pay for performance. You know, "meets expectations" is supposed to be paid at the midpoint of your salary range. "Exceeds" is supposed to be paid at the top of the salary range.
That's the theory anyway. The fine print is that their goal is not to automatically pay you what they say you are worth, but to "move you towards" the part of the salary range that matches your performance.
Last year I did the calculations based on my 4% increase. Turns out it would take roughly 7 years worth of raises before I am actually making what my performance assesments say I'm worth.
And yes, I think this is the time of year when many people are getting raises. At least those who work for companies that have yearly performance assesments and compensation evaluation.
I will be satisfied if I get at least 5%. Anything less and I'm going to be very irritated that they even have the nerve to claim they "pay for performance".
It would take a 20% raise to get to where I should be.
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Shanti
My company is big on pay for performance. You know, "meets expectations" is supposed to be paid at the midpoint of your salary range. "Exceeds" is supposed to be paid at the top of the salary range.
That's the theory anyway. The fine print is that their goal is not to automatically pay you what they say you are worth, but to "move you towards" the part of the salary range that matches your performance.
Last year I did the calculations based on my 4% increase. Turns out it would take roughly 7 years worth of raises before I am actually making what my performance assesments say I'm worth.
And yes, I think this is the time of year when many people are getting raises. At least those who work for companies that have yearly performance assesments and compensation evaluation.
I will be satisfied if I get at least 5%. Anything less and I'm going to be very irritated that they even have the nerve to claim they "pay for performance".
It would take a 20% raise to get to where I should be.
the other part of your problem is that the range in which your pay is based will continue to shift to the right due to inflation. Unfortunately for those of us who work in this type of system, we are perpetually in the same portion of the range unless we get promoted or a huge raise. Once on the low end, always on the low end.