Retention Bonuses at FinRegs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am aware of the policy at two finregs, which does allow for up to 30% of salary paid out either in increments or a lump at the end of a term of 1-2 years. The bar is high and I've only ever seen it used for senior executives and in one instance the lead attorney on a case.

For context, I have seen exit incentives used much more frequently...

lol absolutely this. Especially for executives/management who are no longer eligible for union representation and anyone at the FRB (again, no labor union protection).

Pressure campaigns to force someone out can be INTENSE.

I'm not sure you know what an exit incentive is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am aware of the policy at two finregs, which does allow for up to 30% of salary paid out either in increments or a lump at the end of a term of 1-2 years. The bar is high and I've only ever seen it used for senior executives and in one instance the lead attorney on a case.

For context, I have seen exit incentives used much more frequently...

lol absolutely this. Especially for executives/management who are no longer eligible for union representation and anyone at the FRB (again, no labor union protection).

Pressure campaigns to force someone out can be INTENSE.

I'm not sure you know what an exit incentive is.

I work at a finreg and I have never heard of an exit incentive. What is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am aware of the policy at two finregs, which does allow for up to 30% of salary paid out either in increments or a lump at the end of a term of 1-2 years. The bar is high and I've only ever seen it used for senior executives and in one instance the lead attorney on a case.

For context, I have seen exit incentives used much more frequently...

lol absolutely this. Especially for executives/management who are no longer eligible for union representation and anyone at the FRB (again, no labor union protection).

Pressure campaigns to force someone out can be INTENSE.

I'm not sure you know what an exit incentive is.

I work at a finreg and I have never heard of an exit incentive. What is it?

I work at a FinReg. Some years back, they offered people $25K to leave if I remember correctly. The offer was only good for a short period of time (maybe a month or two). There was also a VERA opportunity around the same time...the rumor was that it was done as a favor to a senior staff member that leadership wanted gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am aware of the policy at two finregs, which does allow for up to 30% of salary paid out either in increments or a lump at the end of a term of 1-2 years. The bar is high and I've only ever seen it used for senior executives and in one instance the lead attorney on a case.

For context, I have seen exit incentives used much more frequently...

lol absolutely this. Especially for executives/management who are no longer eligible for union representation and anyone at the FRB (again, no labor union protection).

Pressure campaigns to force someone out can be INTENSE.

I'm the PP and I don't think it has anything at all to do with union representation. Would you really WANT your union to prevent you from getting offered six digits to voluntarily leave your organization?

If you had union representation, they wouldn’t dare try to push you out absent criminal conduct.

[Anonymous]

Do you think that is true at the SEC for non-probationary employees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The “retention” policy is you’re able to coast until retirement. The SEC and other finregs are so captured by interest groups that they don’t actually do any meaningful work fighting corporations

+1!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that is true at the SEC for non-probationary employees?

Are you asking about SEC pushing out nonprobationary employees? If so answer is yes. Have seen multiple occurrences. If they need your slot or manager doesn't like you, it is very possible. Union fakes help if management says go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow this sounds like a scam. Other than IT guys and maybe the lead attorney on a case, I cannot think of a single employee at the 2 finregs I’ve worked at that are that indispensable. Super curious to know the justification?

PP who has some experience here. Broadly speaking, I have seen it happen in two general scenarios:

1. Somebody who is integral to a high profile "time bound" initiative. Examples include the lead on a case, a rulemaking, and a major operational initiative (ie compensation overhaul or large scale office move/renovation)
2. Somebody in a position where a departure at that time would be damaging from an optics/image/political perspective. This is typically a very senior high profile person. Example would be the general counsel in the middle of a controversy/federal case about the constitutionality of a regulation or the CFO in the middle of congressional hearings about potentially improper contracting/procurement.

Eh, still sounds like a boondoggle. I think anyone with half a brain can pick up most rule makings and operational initiatives. Also GCs usually don’t litigate so who cares if they leave? And a retention bonus to keep someone from skipping out on congressional testimony seems questionable at best!

Pretty much nothing fin regs do matters THAT much. Maybe lead counsel on a trial, but I don’t thing legal ethics allow you to literally quit in the middle of a trial!

I suppose I can see it MAYBE for a financial-crisis type event, like a bank failure …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that is true at the SEC for non-probationary employees?

Are you asking about SEC pushing out nonprobationary employees? If so answer is yes. Have seen multiple occurrences. If they need your slot or manager doesn't like you, it is very possible. Union fakes help if management says go.

Wouldn't there be a track record of someone working there for 10 years, etc., and then being all of a sudden targeted for performance? Seems like a stretch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am aware of the policy at two finregs, which does allow for up to 30% of salary paid out either in increments or a lump at the end of a term of 1-2 years. The bar is high and I've only ever seen it used for senior executives and in one instance the lead attorney on a case.

For context, I have seen exit incentives used much more frequently...

lol absolutely this. Especially for executives/management who are no longer eligible for union representation and anyone at the FRB (again, no labor union protection).

Pressure campaigns to force someone out can be INTENSE.

I'm the PP and I don't think it has anything at all to do with union representation. Would you really WANT your union to prevent you from getting offered six digits to voluntarily leave your organization?

If you had union representation, they wouldn’t dare try to push you out absent criminal conduct.

I don't understand this comment in light of how frequently people on this thread will respond to situations by saying something like "start looking for a new job, they want you gone." It happens all the time...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that is true at the SEC for non-probationary employees?

Are you asking about SEC pushing out nonprobationary employees? If so answer is yes. Have seen multiple occurrences. If they need your slot or manager doesn't like you, it is very possible. Union fakes help if management says go.

Wouldn't there be a track record of someone working there for 10 years, etc., and then being all of a sudden targeted for performance? Seems like a stretch.

Multiple cases I know of. This is how it goes: SEC removes employee (voluntarily-employee threatened and gets a new job and/or resigns, or involuntarily- employee is terminated on false motives (SEC doesn't like this because evidence has to be coordinated and faked in the process). However, SEC still isn't afraid, the only next move by employee, and his or her only recourse after termination, is to sue after NTEU 293 doesn't save them (after management tells NTEU not to). SEC knows unemployed employee cannot afford legal representation for long. Case closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that is true at the SEC for non-probationary employees?

Are you asking about SEC pushing out nonprobationary employees? If so answer is yes. Have seen multiple occurrences. If they need your slot or manager doesn't like you, it is very possible. Union fakes help if management says go.

Wouldn't there be a track record of someone working there for 10 years, etc., and then being all of a sudden targeted for performance? Seems like a stretch.

Multiple cases I know of. This is how it goes: SEC removes employee (voluntarily-employee threatened and gets a new job and/or resigns, or involuntarily- employee is terminated on false motives (SEC doesn't like this because evidence has to be coordinated and faked in the process). However, SEC still isn't afraid, the only next move by employee, and his or her only recourse after termination, is to sue after NTEU 293 doesn't save them (after management tells NTEU not to). SEC knows unemployed employee cannot afford legal representation for long. Case closed.

The bolded is not a removal, and there is nothing any union COULD do about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that is true at the SEC for non-probationary employees?

Are you asking about SEC pushing out nonprobationary employees? If so answer is yes. Have seen multiple occurrences. If they need your slot or manager doesn't like you, it is very possible. Union fakes help if management says go.

Wouldn't there be a track record of someone working there for 10 years, etc., and then being all of a sudden targeted for performance? Seems like a stretch.

Multiple cases I know of. This is how it goes: SEC removes employee (voluntarily-employee threatened and gets a new job and/or resigns, or involuntarily- employee is terminated on false motives (SEC doesn't like this because evidence has to be coordinated and faked in the process). However, SEC still isn't afraid, the only next move by employee, and his or her only recourse after termination, is to sue after NTEU 293 doesn't save them (after management tells NTEU not to). SEC knows unemployed employee cannot afford legal representation for long. Case closed.

The bolded is not a removal, and there is nothing any union COULD do about that.

exactly, terminations hidden in resignations. Not unusual in private sector. An evil in the federal govt agency using it against long-standing employees. As certain agencies become more corrupted, it'll become more common and accepted to free up budget or slots for nefarious reasons. it's happening.