Corporate Feudalism

heraldry.jpgI must’ve picked up the phrase ‘cor­po­rate feu­dal­ism’ some­where, and as I con­tin­ue work­ing as a serf this sit­u­a­tion is con­stant­ly rein­forced.

Tues­day we were required to attend a meet­ing that would appar­ent­ly explain how we are com­pen­sat­ed for our work. Not only was it ter­ri­bly thought out and pre­sent­ed, the obvi­ous illu­sion-work and sta­tis­ti­cal gym­nas­tics only end­ed up rein­forc­ing that we are only paid enough to max­i­mize prof­its. It is quite dif­fi­cult to explain exact­ly what they tried to pull on us with­out show­ing you the pow­er­point pre­sen­ta­tion but I will try.

First, they use data gath­ered from many oth­er cor­po­ra­tions to deter­mine pay lev­els and the aver­age pay for that lev­el. Sec­ond­ly, they deter­mine what the pay range for each lev­el should be. I am lev­el 4 and the range is $25,100 then $31,000 then $38,000 then $46,000. Lev­el 5 pay starts at $28,000 and increas­es just about pro­por­tion­al­ly to lev­el 4. Despite being told that my com­pa­ny pays the nation­al aver­age for every­one, it seemed that most peo­ple get paid the bare min­i­mum. It also seems to explain why they are so eager to pro­mote peo­ple to a ‘high­er’ pay grade. By keep­ing us at the min­i­mum pay for a grade they are able to give the illu­sion of reward­ing excel­lence while actu­al­ly sav­ing them­selves some saw­bucks. The les­son here is to refuse pro­mo­tion and its added respon­si­bil­i­ties in order to make more mon­ey.

Then we learned about rais­es and were shown anoth­er chart that rates job per­for­mance to the amount of raise we should get for each lev­el of per­for­mance. Since I seem to be exceed­ing expec­ta­tions, I would qual­i­fy for a 3%-5% raise at the end of the year. Accord­ing to the chart. But then we were told that ‘mer­it increas­es’ are lim­it­ed due to the amount that is bud­get­ed for said increas­es. Thus, most peo­ple won’t get as much as they deserve because the peo­ple who deter­mine the rais­es haven’t been giv­en enough cash to do so. There are two rea­sons that this makes employ­ees not care about their work. 1) It sends the mes­sage that the high­er high­er-ups choose to lim­it our com­pen­sa­tion com­plete­ly inde­pen­dent of our skill lev­el and 2) The dif­fer­ence in a raise com­par­ing a below aver­age work­er to an above aver­age work­er becomes no more than $50-$100 a year. I’m assum­ing, of course, that prof­it motive is sec­ondary to jus­tice.

I call this cor­po­rate feu­dal­ism because, with each year that pass­es, the gap between the vas­sals of the lord and the serfs increas­es by the amount that we serfs deserve pay­ment for but do not receive. Also the corporation/manor is increas­ing­ly becom­ing respon­si­ble for all aspects of the serf life. The office now often has its own cafe­te­ria, its own day­care, its own health care provider. And we are con­sid­ered skilled labor since our jobs appar­ent­ly require a col­lege edu­ca­tion. As unskilled labor increas­ing­ly becomes auto­mat­ed or obso­lete, those work­ers will become a men­di­cant class. I would­n’t mind this so much if I was more than a serf. Or if there were still prop­er knights need­ed to defend the cas­tle instead of lawyers and accoun­tants.

And I learned the word ‘face-time’ which is when you have no work to do but can’t just leave because you still have to keep track of every 15 minute incre­ment of a work­day.

These are the links to oth­er things that I have found regard­ing cor­po­rate feu­dal­ism. They are quite lib­er­al­ly par­ti­san, which tends to detract from their worth as they end up sound­ing more like whiny rants against con­ser­v­a­tives than any­thing mar­gin­al­ly more inter­est­ing.

http://www.incentre.net/tcantine/cf.html

6 thoughts on “Corporate Feudalism”

  1. This is actu­al­ly pret­ty stan­dard — the lev­els and sub­levels (which our com­pa­ny calls “quin­tiles”) with­in them. How­ev­er, I do think your com­pa­ny pays crap­py… With­out dis­clos­ing too much, with the same amount of edu­ca­tion and expe­ri­ence some­one from your com­pa­ny could expect about 25–50% more com­pen­sa­tion at my com­pa­ny. The set per­cent­age for rais­es is stan­dard too. A depart­ment is giv­en x% and must have their rais­es aver­age to that — so there­fore some­one who has done an excel­lent job will get maybe 1/4% more of a raise than some­one who is just short of being fired…

    This is why our gen­er­a­tion is that of the ‘hor­i­zon­tal cor­po­rate lad­der’. (Which is switch­ing jobs to move up iin­stead of work­ing the same job for 50 years, not sleep­ing with the boss;))

  2. What frus­trates ME most­ly is not so much the pay itself–I make enough to live off of hap­pi­ly. And there are peo­ple who make far less to do far worse.

    I just more­so get both­ered by the con­nec­tion between our shit­ty pay and our worth in the eyes of man­age­ment. Our pay seems to reflect their atti­tude towards us as worth­less, unval­ued “peons.” It seems to indi­cate that we are not wor­thy of mak­ing as much as oth­er peo­ple across the coun­try who do the same sor­ta job.

    THAT’S god­damn annoy­ing.

  3. even if it could be shown to be a bald-faced lie, no one with any pow­er would care because chang­ing it would cut into their salaries. although since a uni­ver­si­ty is sup­pos­ed­ly an NPO, per­haps there is anoth­er rea­son why it does­n’t change.

  4. That pre­sen­ta­tion was dis­heart­en­ing to say the least. It seemed to say that the com­pa­ny will offer mediocre pay with lit­tle hope of advance­ment while con­tin­u­ing to demand more of us. One more rea­son I will be mov­ing on before too much time has passed.

  5. As some­body recenl­ty “pro­mot­ed” from the bot­tom of one lev­el to the bot­tom of the next high­er, I can relate. Every year the ranges for the lev­els increase slight­ly. Every year my raise is just enough to keep me from falling out of the bot­tom of the lev­el. How­ev­er, HR pro­claims the mid­point of the lev­el to also be the aver­age pay for the peo­ple at that lev­el. It’s too bad there is no way to show this to be a bald­faced lie.

Comments are closed.