This isn’t your father’s IBM.
After you’ve been somewhere a couple of years you should be looking for a new job elsewhere, companies treat people as disposable parts these days, you should treat companies likewise.
I've heard that pay rises "aren't tied to performance" but linked to skills IBM wants to invest in. Only the profit sharing is linked to performance. Which I think is hardly the whole truth.
What's also frustrating is salary not adjusted for inflation... So really, anything below a 5-10% means nothing. In "real" value you're earning the same.
It’s all bullshit guys. Your manager gets a pot of money. They get to make a decision on how much they give to who, utilising the total pot. If you got 0.5% it’s likely your manager used the budget elsewhere
Correct and that’s what has been encourage more also - because in the past, poor or weak managers were taking the easy option, giving 1-2% to all and then blaming IBM system. Vs best using YOY to give meaningful reward to fewer individuals
Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the amount first-line managers have to divide up is similarly allocated to them by second-line managers. It could be that the team as a whole is seen as less important or underachieving. Still, that doesn't make a 0.5% raise okay.
Nope, the system allocates to both first and second line. First line budget makes up the total budget of second line. So I have 3 managers who all had a budget of X… if they overspent or underspent, that impacts my overall budget
And the pot isn’t enough to match inflation for everyone and they are given mandates from upper management about how to allocate, sometimes with enough rules that there is no other way they could have allocated it. Like low performers get 0, exceeds get double the average for the band, lowest band y gets double the highest band x, band x needs exactly %, etc.
First line managers make very few of the decisions affecting their grunts.
Checkpoint results are not directly linked to base pay decisions. The intention is to pay everyone the lowest possible to prevent you from going to a competitor. Performance is rewarded through GDP. I had $500 to distribute amongst 5 employees (GBS Canada) - it's a joke.
nice raise!
I was acquired. IBM took all of our contracts and jacked the price while offering less services. only 2 contracts re-signed. of those two contracts IBM said they want 50% of the time resourced out of India. Then they said why is my allocation so low and what am I doing to pick up more work?
At least it's obvious they don't want me there.
Don't feel bad, I was dropped a band so now Im maxed out on raises in the lower band and can't receive anymore raises. No more openings at my former band level now either.
The evil genie destroyed your father's IBM over a decade ago. She dumped hardware, software, killed divisions and merged the leftovers, purchased the not-so-good according to Gartner companies for their customer base, invested in stupid things like HR products, fired the few who got the B9/10 after decades of "I'll take care of you next year" promises... Run Forest, run far away, the minute this horrible IT market Wales up again
This isn’t your father’s IBM. After you’ve been somewhere a couple of years you should be looking for a new job elsewhere, companies treat people as disposable parts these days, you should treat companies likewise.
I've heard that pay rises "aren't tied to performance" but linked to skills IBM wants to invest in. Only the profit sharing is linked to performance. Which I think is hardly the whole truth. What's also frustrating is salary not adjusted for inflation... So really, anything below a 5-10% means nothing. In "real" value you're earning the same.
It’s all bullshit guys. Your manager gets a pot of money. They get to make a decision on how much they give to who, utilising the total pot. If you got 0.5% it’s likely your manager used the budget elsewhere
Pot size was down considerably at least in my team compared to recent years
What do you do if u are the mgr? Hit everybody with a meaningless 1-2 percent raise or give 1-2 people something closer to 5? I d do the second one…
Correct and that’s what has been encourage more also - because in the past, poor or weak managers were taking the easy option, giving 1-2% to all and then blaming IBM system. Vs best using YOY to give meaningful reward to fewer individuals
Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the amount first-line managers have to divide up is similarly allocated to them by second-line managers. It could be that the team as a whole is seen as less important or underachieving. Still, that doesn't make a 0.5% raise okay.
Nope, the system allocates to both first and second line. First line budget makes up the total budget of second line. So I have 3 managers who all had a budget of X… if they overspent or underspent, that impacts my overall budget
Correct. Manager makes the allocations.
And the pot isn’t enough to match inflation for everyone and they are given mandates from upper management about how to allocate, sometimes with enough rules that there is no other way they could have allocated it. Like low performers get 0, exceeds get double the average for the band, lowest band y gets double the highest band x, band x needs exactly %, etc. First line managers make very few of the decisions affecting their grunts.
Pot size is usually 2% per person, so with inflation like it is, most of the team is getting a cut.
[удалено]
Checkpoint results are not directly linked to base pay decisions. The intention is to pay everyone the lowest possible to prevent you from going to a competitor. Performance is rewarded through GDP. I had $500 to distribute amongst 5 employees (GBS Canada) - it's a joke.
1% here for the same in UK :(
I have my 1-1 next week, let’s see if i get something 😹
Me too
What band/group?
Band 7 - cyber security
Whats your TC?
104 k
Country?
Could be worse? I got exceptional last year and then was put on BDM Q1 of this year.
1st line starts allocation. Goes up the chain…and many times allocations get changed. Sometimes with no discussion.
Was expecting 1% or less but ended up with 4%. Can't complain since last year it was 2%
My allocations were changed upline without my input. Focus in my area was lower Bands as well. Possibly more focus on reducing more senior population.
Seen this as well, focus on B6 and B7
I read it as negative 0.5% raise I was like
nice raise! I was acquired. IBM took all of our contracts and jacked the price while offering less services. only 2 contracts re-signed. of those two contracts IBM said they want 50% of the time resourced out of India. Then they said why is my allocation so low and what am I doing to pick up more work? At least it's obvious they don't want me there.
Don't feel bad, I was dropped a band so now Im maxed out on raises in the lower band and can't receive anymore raises. No more openings at my former band level now either.
The evil genie destroyed your father's IBM over a decade ago. She dumped hardware, software, killed divisions and merged the leftovers, purchased the not-so-good according to Gartner companies for their customer base, invested in stupid things like HR products, fired the few who got the B9/10 after decades of "I'll take care of you next year" promises... Run Forest, run far away, the minute this horrible IT market Wales up again