Thread regarding Cisco Systems Inc. layoffs

The report from the remuneration committee is always interesting. Those execs getting 2-3x salary as bonus and then getting 1.8 IPF. In fact, a few years ago, I got an IPF of about 1.07 and was given a long sob story about how others had to get more, and I got less because of the bell curve.

Then a couple of months later, I'm reading this report, and all of the people working for JOHN got IPF of 2.0!! No bell curve at the top, it seems.

" I can honestly say that my Cisco base pay plus 100% of my bonus percentage was only "at" the industry average. Every recruiter I talk with says they can get me $1-5K more annually as base pay than I made at Cisco with my bonus. "

So you write a moaning post, say you can get more money and are still here? Why are we employing arrogant idiots? Go! Why are you still at Cisco? Could it be because you are talking out of your back passage?

I think the clue is in the name, as @PrHyfEz-sok mentioned. You cannot "expect" a bonus and it should not be considered a definite and remins totally at the company's discretion whether you should get one or not. Now if base pay is not reaching market levels then that is an entirely seperate problem.

Yes and no. I agree 100% that a "bonus" is above & beyond and should not be expected. However, HR tells you, at least in the US, that your offer is based on the "total compensation package". That total compensation package is made up of, for non-sales staff:

base pay

benefits (health:medical/vision/dental and 401(k) / ESPP)

bonus (some percentage of base pay)

You can't tell me that I'm being compensated at or above the industry average based on the total compensation package and then withhold the "bonus" part for when the company fails to meet it's performance goals. The "bonus" is supposed to be what puts the Cisco total compensation package above the industry average, not gets the TCP to the industry average.

I can honestly say that my Cisco base pay plus 100% of my bonus percentage was only "at" the industry average. Every recruiter I talk with says they can get me $1-5K more annually as base pay than I made at Cisco with my bonus. I'm currently making more--base pay/no bonus--now than I did at Cisco. I think I'd rather have no bonus & a higher base pay. That way, if leadership fails, I still get the same wages at the end of the year for a bad year as I do for a good year. Why should only leadership get the higher pay in bad years?

Another thread to bash us (geographical region).

Bonus: something in addition to what is expected or strictly due: such as. a :money or an equivalent given in addition to an employee's usual compensation.

I think the clue is in the name, as @PrHyfEz-sok mentioned. You cannot "expect" a bonus and it should not be considered a definite and remins totally at the company's discretion whether you should get one or not. Now if base pay is not reaching market levels then that is an entirely seperate problem.

I agree and also disagree. It was similar at my last place until they got really hard about bonuses. They made the point (and I kinda agree with them) that the bonus is an addition to salary and should be seen as being awarded if you go above and beyond. Otherwise why not just have it as salary. I think the assumption is that we will be get it. They would say the assumption is you get it if your performance exceeds what you would normally do. Why get a bonus for just doing your job? Clue is in the word bonus.

I would rather the people who coast get less than they expect and the people that achieve get more. That way there is incentive.

The same should definitely apply to the leadership.