verizon decided to F the RIFF'ed one last time by giving their own spin on performance and even if for the last 35 years you had performing and above they F'ed us by giving evaluations below performing. I was dinged 25% and it sounds like some even more. I called the HR group and told them I am taking it to court unless they come up with the 25%. Where is this mystery performance evaluation?? verizon is unethical and the credo is nothing more than bull shit. verizon couldn't care less about the customers and employees. A few thousand small claims filings may get them to at least do the cheap thing and PAY WHAT THEY OWE rather than send lawyers all around the country. I would love to show this stuff to a judge. Once again people like MARK FUNKA lied and screwed myself and verizon over. I hope all call the HR contact and then file with the courts. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
32 replies (most recent on top)
Well, I confirmed with some management friends of mine that they weren't even given a chance to determine their riffed employees STI. It came to them at 75% and locked down for their Performing person. So, either the Director pre-populated it somehow or HR did. I also found out that despite any composite ranking the managers might have done, somebody still had the ability to go behind and override that ranking and get rid of whoever they chose. So, even though this was supposed to be based solely on saving the most amount of money, it looks like the directors were allowed to be very subjective about who got cut. If your manager was an A$$, and your director didn't want to deal with the people that actually stood up for themselves, bye, bye!!!!
Lying, chicken-$hit infantile traits are all requirements to be a manager at VZ
I'm transitioning to Frontier.
My STI came in at 75%. There are 4 others in my team. 3 of them got 105% with the 4th person getting a leading rating with 110%.
Hmmm! 3 got 5% more + 1 got 10% more = 25%. And my STI is down by exactly the same percentage?
Nah! It's me being paranoid. A vz manager wouldn't be guilty of such a chicken $hit infantile act. Crapping on me on because im leaving and an easy target, right?
Apologies long winded
Early 2015
VZ riffed the manager of my team early last year. Before leaving he warned each of us that the company would hit the team with additional riffs and cut the extra pay received for working a miserably stressful on-call week that runs 7 nights a week and includes all day & night for both Saturday/Sunday. 6 weeks later they riff'd 60%+ of the team and downgraded me to an individual contributor because those left in the group were too few to manage the work load and project responsibilities. Since I was now an individual contributor the company took away my supervisor on-call allowance.
2016 STI/pay raise
My STI came in at 95%, grateful for that. Review: despite previous leading/performing ratings, told I was not an effective individual contributor, BUT if I were willing to be BOTH a team lead, (no extra pay) AND an individual contributor then, obviously, the new manager would "see" more value in me. I politely declined. 1.8% pay raise. Still got a job tho. Really am grateful for that.
Much luck and success to our lost, riffed, colleagues.
Happy dayz.
sorry I guess the truth hurts. 75-105% is the guideline. Maybe next time you'll actually research what you are whining about instead of making ignorant assed statements.
Make that 2hre
3ycr you are so full of shit. Go back to your bottle and get ready for being a dick tomorrow. A--hole!
Oh look Lowell is here...
Allrighty then
people who are bitching about getting 75% HAVE NO LEG TO STAND ON. For crissakes, are you that stupid? Did you never read the STI information? 75-105% is the guidline for 'Performing'. Done, end of story. Sue? sue for what? F---ing moron(s). Nobody will take your case given the published information...which is probably a good thing considering you would lose and also be out of pocket on lawyer fees. McDonalds is hiring people of your IQ, however.
I was told the position was eliminated as the business priorities have changed. In such case I expected 100% of the STI. However, I got less than what I am expecting. Looks like the IT managers/directors in Wireline IT/Radhika, do not know the guidelines of HR, that the impacted employees are eligible for full STI. How do we force them to pay the remaining balance?
We were told that the RIF did not have anything to do with performance. Rather it was based upon what you cost the company. Your job was eliminated it was not performance based. So the guy who says its perf based .. FU.
I got 90%. I worked my ass off and if you decided to eliminate my job That's fine for 2016 but I need my money for the year 2015 that I worked my ass of and helped you meet ur goals.
What was done is the fabricated the evaluations and manually awarded what they wanted. Several thousand small claims cases of verizon failing to pay the severed employees will cost many times what it would have been to just pay it out. These are all slam dunks and verizon legal would not have advised it's directors to do. This was all on the verizon failed management and by vz guidelines everyone of the falsified evaluations authors need immediate termination.
The STI for 'Performing' is always set between 75 and 105% of the number VZ hit. This year VZ hit 100% (which is rare)...so anything between 75-105% of that is normal. The number in your severance is just a guidline of your target and band level. There are very few people that would have gotten a 75% which tells me you probably were not very good. Quit bitching and move on.
My STI was 9.3% less than what was on my severance agreement. Ratings were never discussed with me before I left on 12/31.
@1aha - your an idiot, that is not true. Get your facts straight. You sound like a retail employee.
If you were RIFd then you were ranked as lowest performing one month prior to your RIF notice. Not to sound like a Richard Head, but be thankful you received any STI at all. A "D" on a performance review outside of being in a new position / role means that you can ZERO for your STI.
@1wyl I got a 'leading' rating my last year at VZ before getting the hook. Actual performance has nothing to do with layoffs. I got shuffled around so much in my last 4-5 years there and impressed many directors, but in the end, I sat in the wrong building and wasnt protected by my last director. In fact, I got many leading ratings and at one time was in the Succession Planning program for future leaders. Glad I got to go out with a generous package and onto another company that rewards my ability.
@1fvr I got peforming. HR emailed my sti communication. Shows how a$$ backwards Verizon is when performing gets you fired...
The board approved up to 100% multiplier, that does not mean you get 100%
you got fired, how good do you think your performance evaluation would be?
Better than nothing. I for one am happy to get some scraps from Lowell's table one last time lol...
Here's a stupid question but what is the 100% based on, we have never been given the information.
@G80cWnr-zok I looked at the pre-tax amount on the paycheck advice. It was not 100% even though I was communicated it would be 100%.
Look at the breakout. The 25% was probably additional tax withholding.
I have a text message from my ED which said STI was 100%. Yet, I did not get 100%. I think I have grounds for grievance since I have something in writing from my former boss. Yes?
I was Riffed and got my full STI
Depends on what your last day was. There is a stipulation that if you are not employed the full year, the STI is reduced to 67% and then prorated by the number of pay periods that you were employed.
It's probably your greedy manager and insecure coworkers left behind.that contribute to u getting less and them more..I was being pushed out around performance evaluation time...but I remember the position before that, I outperformed my peers and she got less, so the year later she sabotaged me lol I don't miss that place. At least u got something
I think a case can be made for why you did not receive 100% of the money. RIFs were not supposedly performance based so they shouldn't have dingged your STI.
I was RIFd and received 100% of my STI
Well mine came in about 60% of what it would normally be after taxes, etc. This is really strange. Based on the normal method they used if the bonus should have been 100%, unless we were ranked as developing after the fact by our managers, 60% isn't even an option for them in the online tool. Performing is only a small window of plus or minus 5%. Developing has a huge range of between 0% and 80%. I'm guessing they ranked us as developing after they laid us off so they could cut that expense. With more than 6000 of us let go, they could have easily saved over $10M and given that to Lowell. Remember, he did just get a raise to $18M/year. That money doesn't grow on trees you know...