AT A Staff meeting this Am at one of the sister hospitals we were all floorded when we were told of how christmas bonus were going be this year. All staff doctors (86 of them) will receive $ 5000.00 ??//?? The ADMN, has been awarded a new De Ville. For his goals to cut all cost by 30% ( And endangering patient welfare too.) This is the ass that wanted me to "rinse out the blankets and send them back " His 26 y/o blonde sexatary who cannot even turn on the computer is getting a all expense paid trip to Rio. For 2 Weeks. All the rest of the employees will receive $ 2.00 (Two) Dollars for each year employeed! MOsthave only been there for 2 or 3 years as all the oldtimers were run off. Is it just me or does this SUCK? This is a perfect example why our medical cost are soring!!!
Christmas Bonus Run A muck
- Thread starter sudsman
- Start date
Help Support :
captainmoody
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 22, 2006
- Messages
- 348
So typical to hear now.. Some big-wig accountant or admin claims to have saved a corporation all this money, then they proceed to give fat bonuses to the high ups and nothing to the little guy..
What about re-investing in new fixtures, upgrades, or just plain better maintenance? Nah, instead give the big guy a new car!
What about re-investing in new fixtures, upgrades, or just plain better maintenance? Nah, instead give the big guy a new car!
partscounterman
Member
That is really sad. The people who REALLY do the work getting a few crummy bucks. It is not a bonus-this is an insult! Hope you can file a greivence or something.
From an accounting persepctive sales-people (income) [in this case doctors] get big bucks.
Admin (overhead and expense) get screwed time and time again.
Someone shold tell the big guys that without admin (expense) you can't have good doctors (income).
Admin (overhead and expense) get screwed time and time again.
Someone shold tell the big guys that without admin (expense) you can't have good doctors (income).
That's what happens when you have "for profit" hospitals, Illegal in Canada thankfully but not for much longer if the wrong sorts get elected. On a similar note, hows this for stupidity...
The railway I worked for has a bonus type plan based on a percentage of yearly profit. Well a few years ago the year end didn't turn out so well according to the forumla they used so none of the employees got a bonus, except for the inner sanctum of VP's President and CEO. The cause of not making the expected profit was solely weather and disaster related, i.e. hurrican Andrew, market forces, nothing the employees had any control over. Safety improved etc. This was explained in the following company newsletter, after the collective jaw dropping, that the brass were not gauged on the same forumla. Now to top it off, within only a couple of months from that happening the "company" announces that it for the first time is going to participate in the National Posts "Best Co of the Year". And so the had the National Post send each employee a questionairre asking how they liked working for the company. The result was dismal to say the least and the top brass were hard pressed to wonder why.
The railway I worked for has a bonus type plan based on a percentage of yearly profit. Well a few years ago the year end didn't turn out so well according to the forumla they used so none of the employees got a bonus, except for the inner sanctum of VP's President and CEO. The cause of not making the expected profit was solely weather and disaster related, i.e. hurrican Andrew, market forces, nothing the employees had any control over. Safety improved etc. This was explained in the following company newsletter, after the collective jaw dropping, that the brass were not gauged on the same forumla. Now to top it off, within only a couple of months from that happening the "company" announces that it for the first time is going to participate in the National Posts "Best Co of the Year". And so the had the National Post send each employee a questionairre asking how they liked working for the company. The result was dismal to say the least and the top brass were hard pressed to wonder why.
58limited
Well-known member
This sounds like a good item for an anonymous call to the local news media. Explain to them the hospital's situation, how the ADMN is cutting costs that endanger patient care, yet is giving all these expensive bonuses, but not to the staff. They may have to change their tune with some bad holiday publicity. The Dallas Morning News seems to like stuff like this, you can try Channels 4,5 and 8 too.
Well then, if that upsets you, guess hearing that Wall Street will be handing out 35 billion (USD)in year end cash this year.
L.
L.
Can't hurt to call a newspaper or two,anonomously,of course.....
brettsomers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,993
YAY Suds!
captainmoody
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 22, 2006
- Messages
- 348
Good! Maybe a little bad publicity will change their tune..
wonder what the average nurse/patient ratio is?
In your facility? Little wonder the most experienced, Loyal, trustworthy and Skilled get vested in one facility and move on to the next. There is a limit to the amount of crap anyone will take. Especially after working your butt off in nursing school for 2 to 4 years. Deck the halls.... this is also the time of year when entire nursing units are closed for "new flooring and wallpaper", this practice creates an entire floor of staff to pull and cover Open units when many are on vacation days. also lowering the bottom line at the end of the year. This has went on for years.
In your facility? Little wonder the most experienced, Loyal, trustworthy and Skilled get vested in one facility and move on to the next. There is a limit to the amount of crap anyone will take. Especially after working your butt off in nursing school for 2 to 4 years. Deck the halls.... this is also the time of year when entire nursing units are closed for "new flooring and wallpaper", this practice creates an entire floor of staff to pull and cover Open units when many are on vacation days. also lowering the bottom line at the end of the year. This has went on for years.
air2903
each floor wing has 30 beds until 9 mos ago there were always 3 RN 5 LVN and 5 aide. Now there is 1 RN 1 LVN and 5 "Patient Services" Attendant (just glorified babysitters) All they are trained to do is to call the LVN if they "think" the patient needs help !
each floor wing has 30 beds until 9 mos ago there were always 3 RN 5 LVN and 5 aide. Now there is 1 RN 1 LVN and 5 "Patient Services" Attendant (just glorified babysitters) All they are trained to do is to call the LVN if they "think" the patient needs help !
Another perspective . . .
I thought I would chime in here, since I have been on both sides of the fence. As a small business owner with 8 employees, I make sure that I create a great working environment and treat my employees very well. Afterall, without employees, I could not achieve the goals of my business.
Before starting this business 3 years ago, I worked in a salaried position for a large hospital corporation. Our annual Christmas bonus was either a turkey or a ham. In fact, in most hospitals I've worked for, that has been the bonus every year.
Though a Christmas bonus is always very much appreciated, it is not a part of the employees' normal compensation - hence the word "bonus". If an employee agrees to work for a specified amount of money, then does (s)he have any reason to get upset if they are not given anything in addition to what they have agreed to work for?
If a manager is doing his or her job, then one would expect that he or she generally has more responsibility and oftentimes makes more of a personal sacrifice for the company. For example, many in management are on salary instead of an hourly wage. Many good managers end up putting in more than 40 hours a week, which means they are working hours that they are not even being compensated for. Oftentimes the stress level in a management position is much higher as well, and the decisions that person makes can sometimes even make or break a company.
In a perfect world, I think it would a great incentive for everyone to get a large bonus as a "thank you" for all they do above and beyond their job descriptions. In the real world, however, your money only goes so far, and I don't think it's necessarily wrong to make sure those who are most indispensible (e.g. your managers)are rewarded.
This year all of my employees will get a good bonus. My two top people (my Assistant Director & Supervisor) will get about double what my most senior staff member will get. They pretty much keep the place running when I am gone, and even when I'm here. I couldn't make it without them, and will reward them accordingly.
As the owner of the business, I won't take home much of anything beyond my nominal salary. We've undergone significant expansion this year, which has eaten up pretty much all of of the profits for this year. I'd much rather take a hit personally than to pull it out of my employee's pockets.
Bryan
I thought I would chime in here, since I have been on both sides of the fence. As a small business owner with 8 employees, I make sure that I create a great working environment and treat my employees very well. Afterall, without employees, I could not achieve the goals of my business.
Before starting this business 3 years ago, I worked in a salaried position for a large hospital corporation. Our annual Christmas bonus was either a turkey or a ham. In fact, in most hospitals I've worked for, that has been the bonus every year.
Though a Christmas bonus is always very much appreciated, it is not a part of the employees' normal compensation - hence the word "bonus". If an employee agrees to work for a specified amount of money, then does (s)he have any reason to get upset if they are not given anything in addition to what they have agreed to work for?
If a manager is doing his or her job, then one would expect that he or she generally has more responsibility and oftentimes makes more of a personal sacrifice for the company. For example, many in management are on salary instead of an hourly wage. Many good managers end up putting in more than 40 hours a week, which means they are working hours that they are not even being compensated for. Oftentimes the stress level in a management position is much higher as well, and the decisions that person makes can sometimes even make or break a company.
In a perfect world, I think it would a great incentive for everyone to get a large bonus as a "thank you" for all they do above and beyond their job descriptions. In the real world, however, your money only goes so far, and I don't think it's necessarily wrong to make sure those who are most indispensible (e.g. your managers)are rewarded.
This year all of my employees will get a good bonus. My two top people (my Assistant Director & Supervisor) will get about double what my most senior staff member will get. They pretty much keep the place running when I am gone, and even when I'm here. I couldn't make it without them, and will reward them accordingly.
As the owner of the business, I won't take home much of anything beyond my nominal salary. We've undergone significant expansion this year, which has eaten up pretty much all of of the profits for this year. I'd much rather take a hit personally than to pull it out of my employee's pockets.
Bryan
oxydolfan1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,764
A sobering speech
Speech to the Center for the Study of Democracy, 2006-2007 Economics of Governance Lecture
University of California, Irvine
By Janet L. Yellen, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
November 6, 2006, 4:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
Economic Inequality in the United States
IPB Image
What I've described so far is the big picture for wage inequality—the major change over three decades. However, an interesting twist on the story has occurred during the last decade, when rapid productivity growth raised the real wages of workers throughout the distribution for the first time since the 1960s. During this period, as Figure 1 illustrates, real wages of the lowest earners—the 10th percentile—actually rose somewhat faster than those in the middle of the distribution. The consequence was that wage inequality among those in the bottom half of the distribution, which had been widening throughout the 1980s, diminished during the 1990s. At the same time, real wages at the upper end continued to soar.
IPB Image
The top one percent
These changes in technology and growing globalization go a long way towards explaining the inequality trends I have described. And there certainly are other factors that have also likely played a role. For example, the fall in the real value of the minimum wage appears to have especially depressed the wages of low-skilled women, while declines in unionization particularly impacted the wages of less-skilled men. However, none of these factors provides a complete and compelling explanation for the rapid growth of real wages at the very top of the distribution, the top 1 percent, which, according to IRS data, doubled between 1972 and 2001.
The market forces of changing technology and rising globalization, broadly understood, may matter to some degree for this group. For example, these forces have substantially increased the size of the markets that American companies serve. This has, in turn, increased the impact of individuals who are at the very top end of the talent and skill distributions—and who tend to be in very short supply. These individuals include so-called superstars, such as top entertainers and athletes, highly successful investment bankers and venture capitalists, and perhaps CEOs, although the latter point is hotly debated. For example, people had a high demand to see Michael Jordan perform—far higher than the demand for even a large number of average NBA players—and technology enabled his performances to be broadcast to a very large worldwide audience at relatively low cost. It's not surprising that he, and other superstars, could earn very large incomes.
The superstar argument is less clear-cut with CEO salaries, in part because a CEO's contribution to the bottom line of a corporation is difficult to measure. Some argue that CEO compensation has been driven up by market forces, like the large increase in the size of many American companies, which increases the potential benefit of hiring the right CEO from the limited pool of candidates.
Another possible explanation is the so-called "tournament" model, in which the CEO's direct contribution to the bottom line is not so much of an issue. This model suggests that large pay differentials for those at the top of an organization function as incentives for lower-ranked executives to compete for those positions, in other words, to work harder in order to win the top spots themselves one day. The resulting increase in effort generates benefits for the company that go well beyond the direct contribution made by the CEO.
..
In addition, the distribution of displacement has shifted towards the highly educated: workers holding a college degree saw nearly a 50 percent increase in their displacement rates between the early 1980s recession and the most recent one in 2001, while workers with a high school degree or less actually saw a slight decline in displacement rates. So, more educated workers are seeing erosion of their job security relative to their less-educated counterparts. Of course, job displacement still remains a more significant issue for low-paid workers, but the instability that they have always faced has increasingly spread to higher-income groups.
Involuntary job loss frequently inflicts dire consequences, which have grown more severe over time. Involuntary job losers typically are unemployed for at least four months, about 70 percent longer than individuals who enter unemployment voluntarily. As such, the rising share of permanent job losers among the overall unemployed has helped keep the typical length of an unemployment spell stubbornly high over the past few decades.18 The picture looks even gloomier when you recognize that some job losers withdraw from the labor force and are no longer counted as unemployed, so their observed unemployment spells understate the severity of the jobless experience. Put these factors together and it's clear that periods without earnings can be quite lengthy and costly for job losers. Moreover, when displaced workers do find new jobs, they're taking a pay cut of about 17 percent on average. The size of this wage loss in the early 2000s was the highest in at least 20 years.
..
Conclusion
This comparison of the U.S. and other advanced industrialized countries, though just a sketch, is suggestive. The possible responses to rising inequality do not boil down to "either/or" kinds of solutions. Rather, these responses range along a fairly wide continuum, reflecting the tradeoffs that policymakers face between efficiency and equity. Certainly some market-determined income differences are needed to create incentives to work, invest, and take risks. However, there are signs that rising inequality is intensifying resistance to globalization, impairing social cohesion, and could, ultimately, undermine American democracy. Improvements in education are an imperative for reducing inequality and an easily justifiable investment, given its high social return. In contrast, improvements in the social safety net entail costs, even when policy interventions are well-designed from an efficiency standpoint. Even so, in my opinion, they deserve high policy priority. Inequality has risen to the point that it seems to me worthwhile for the U.S. to seriously consider taking the risk of making our economy more rewarding for more of the people.
Speech to the Center for the Study of Democracy, 2006-2007 Economics of Governance Lecture
University of California, Irvine
By Janet L. Yellen, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
November 6, 2006, 4:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
Economic Inequality in the United States
IPB Image
What I've described so far is the big picture for wage inequality—the major change over three decades. However, an interesting twist on the story has occurred during the last decade, when rapid productivity growth raised the real wages of workers throughout the distribution for the first time since the 1960s. During this period, as Figure 1 illustrates, real wages of the lowest earners—the 10th percentile—actually rose somewhat faster than those in the middle of the distribution. The consequence was that wage inequality among those in the bottom half of the distribution, which had been widening throughout the 1980s, diminished during the 1990s. At the same time, real wages at the upper end continued to soar.
IPB Image
The top one percent
These changes in technology and growing globalization go a long way towards explaining the inequality trends I have described. And there certainly are other factors that have also likely played a role. For example, the fall in the real value of the minimum wage appears to have especially depressed the wages of low-skilled women, while declines in unionization particularly impacted the wages of less-skilled men. However, none of these factors provides a complete and compelling explanation for the rapid growth of real wages at the very top of the distribution, the top 1 percent, which, according to IRS data, doubled between 1972 and 2001.
The market forces of changing technology and rising globalization, broadly understood, may matter to some degree for this group. For example, these forces have substantially increased the size of the markets that American companies serve. This has, in turn, increased the impact of individuals who are at the very top end of the talent and skill distributions—and who tend to be in very short supply. These individuals include so-called superstars, such as top entertainers and athletes, highly successful investment bankers and venture capitalists, and perhaps CEOs, although the latter point is hotly debated. For example, people had a high demand to see Michael Jordan perform—far higher than the demand for even a large number of average NBA players—and technology enabled his performances to be broadcast to a very large worldwide audience at relatively low cost. It's not surprising that he, and other superstars, could earn very large incomes.
The superstar argument is less clear-cut with CEO salaries, in part because a CEO's contribution to the bottom line of a corporation is difficult to measure. Some argue that CEO compensation has been driven up by market forces, like the large increase in the size of many American companies, which increases the potential benefit of hiring the right CEO from the limited pool of candidates.
Another possible explanation is the so-called "tournament" model, in which the CEO's direct contribution to the bottom line is not so much of an issue. This model suggests that large pay differentials for those at the top of an organization function as incentives for lower-ranked executives to compete for those positions, in other words, to work harder in order to win the top spots themselves one day. The resulting increase in effort generates benefits for the company that go well beyond the direct contribution made by the CEO.
..
In addition, the distribution of displacement has shifted towards the highly educated: workers holding a college degree saw nearly a 50 percent increase in their displacement rates between the early 1980s recession and the most recent one in 2001, while workers with a high school degree or less actually saw a slight decline in displacement rates. So, more educated workers are seeing erosion of their job security relative to their less-educated counterparts. Of course, job displacement still remains a more significant issue for low-paid workers, but the instability that they have always faced has increasingly spread to higher-income groups.
Involuntary job loss frequently inflicts dire consequences, which have grown more severe over time. Involuntary job losers typically are unemployed for at least four months, about 70 percent longer than individuals who enter unemployment voluntarily. As such, the rising share of permanent job losers among the overall unemployed has helped keep the typical length of an unemployment spell stubbornly high over the past few decades.18 The picture looks even gloomier when you recognize that some job losers withdraw from the labor force and are no longer counted as unemployed, so their observed unemployment spells understate the severity of the jobless experience. Put these factors together and it's clear that periods without earnings can be quite lengthy and costly for job losers. Moreover, when displaced workers do find new jobs, they're taking a pay cut of about 17 percent on average. The size of this wage loss in the early 2000s was the highest in at least 20 years.
..
Conclusion
This comparison of the U.S. and other advanced industrialized countries, though just a sketch, is suggestive. The possible responses to rising inequality do not boil down to "either/or" kinds of solutions. Rather, these responses range along a fairly wide continuum, reflecting the tradeoffs that policymakers face between efficiency and equity. Certainly some market-determined income differences are needed to create incentives to work, invest, and take risks. However, there are signs that rising inequality is intensifying resistance to globalization, impairing social cohesion, and could, ultimately, undermine American democracy. Improvements in education are an imperative for reducing inequality and an easily justifiable investment, given its high social return. In contrast, improvements in the social safety net entail costs, even when policy interventions are well-designed from an efficiency standpoint. Even so, in my opinion, they deserve high policy priority. Inequality has risen to the point that it seems to me worthwhile for the U.S. to seriously consider taking the risk of making our economy more rewarding for more of the people.
exploder321
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2006
- Messages
- 980
Bonus's
Ok, as i mentioned b4 i sold cars from May 2002 until January 2004...
I worked at two diffrent dealerships, one being a acura/hyundai outfit with a toyota/scion wing, the other was a chevy/pontiac/buick/cadillac dealer. I worked for the caddilac place first until January 1 2003. You had to sell a minimum of 4 cars a month, 6 to get anything ddecent as far as pay goes and 10 to get a small monthly bonus...I sold 3 cars in may, 10 in june, 14 in july, 14 in august, 15 in september, 12 in october, 14 in november and 18 in december.. That was a total of 100 cars sold... This was actually a good showing... I was originaly told that if i sold more than 90 cars i would recieve $500 extra at the end of the year for anything over the 90 i sold.. So i was supposed to get a $5000 bonus (mind you i was one of the top salespersons)..However, the gm didn't like me and decided that i did not deserve this bonus... I just ignored him but never should have, when i recieved my last check, not only did I not get my bonus, also was shorted my december bonus of $100 for every car sold over the 10 needed.. I whent to the owner and he flatly told me it was up to the GM who got the bonus.. I was so stinkin mad, i quit and raised a fuss with there fellow employees and I did get my $5800.00 bonus, but only after the GM lost 7 of his best car salesman...
The acura/hyundai place was far nicer.. They had nothing like this, you got a bonus if you sold more than 6 cars a month and if you sold Hyundais or Acuras (like me) you could make a better living selling a hyundai or acura than a cadillac/chevy..Plus they gave me a slightly used 2002 Hyundai Elantra, wich i gave to my mom for christmas gift in 2004 as my bonus....
Go figure... You'd thunk Cadillac salemen would make great money and i am sure some do, but not at that dealership..
Bonuses are just that...I think its upto whoevers the big fish in the tank and if they feel that you only deserve a demening $2.00 per year worked bonus, thats there perrogitive, but raise a big enough stink, and i think they will change to save face..
Ok, as i mentioned b4 i sold cars from May 2002 until January 2004...
I worked at two diffrent dealerships, one being a acura/hyundai outfit with a toyota/scion wing, the other was a chevy/pontiac/buick/cadillac dealer. I worked for the caddilac place first until January 1 2003. You had to sell a minimum of 4 cars a month, 6 to get anything ddecent as far as pay goes and 10 to get a small monthly bonus...I sold 3 cars in may, 10 in june, 14 in july, 14 in august, 15 in september, 12 in october, 14 in november and 18 in december.. That was a total of 100 cars sold... This was actually a good showing... I was originaly told that if i sold more than 90 cars i would recieve $500 extra at the end of the year for anything over the 90 i sold.. So i was supposed to get a $5000 bonus (mind you i was one of the top salespersons)..However, the gm didn't like me and decided that i did not deserve this bonus... I just ignored him but never should have, when i recieved my last check, not only did I not get my bonus, also was shorted my december bonus of $100 for every car sold over the 10 needed.. I whent to the owner and he flatly told me it was up to the GM who got the bonus.. I was so stinkin mad, i quit and raised a fuss with there fellow employees and I did get my $5800.00 bonus, but only after the GM lost 7 of his best car salesman...
The acura/hyundai place was far nicer.. They had nothing like this, you got a bonus if you sold more than 6 cars a month and if you sold Hyundais or Acuras (like me) you could make a better living selling a hyundai or acura than a cadillac/chevy..Plus they gave me a slightly used 2002 Hyundai Elantra, wich i gave to my mom for christmas gift in 2004 as my bonus....
Go figure... You'd thunk Cadillac salemen would make great money and i am sure some do, but not at that dealership..
Bonuses are just that...I think its upto whoevers the big fish in the tank and if they feel that you only deserve a demening $2.00 per year worked bonus, thats there perrogitive, but raise a big enough stink, and i think they will change to save face..
Well, I'm getting a turkey, a free turkey dinner served in the cafeteria, and each full-time employee get a bonus beginning with $50 or $100 (I can't remember which) and an additional $50 for every 5 years of service. All happens this Friday. It's a nono-for-profit hospital.
