Negotiating a retention bonus
-
@Dashrender They retain staff if possible before hiring new people is what I meant. Naturally there are people who dont want to make the transition or relocate so the over staffing kind of takes care of itself. They've just about doubled in size with each acquisition with our merger being no different.
-
@lhatsynot why doubling? That seems like you're not getting the best bang for your IT buck unless the number of servers is going up many fold with each acquisition?
If economy of scale hasn't kicked in already to allow for the reduction in staffing, when will it?
-
Not doubling IT staff... doubling in assets, branches, total users, and computers. Servers aren't necessarily doubling but migration to more robust software and hardware is.
-
@Dashrender said:
@lhatsynot said:
They've acquired quite a number of other banks (that's how they've grown so fast in their 15 years of existence) and they retain staff if possible, even in the IT department.
hmm.. they retain the staff? Makes me wonder if you want to be there even more so. If they aren't shedding redundant staff sounds like they are possible wasting money.
Yeah, it is a big concern regardless of what they do.
-
@lhatsynot said:
@Dashrender They retain staff if possible before hiring new people is what I meant. Naturally there are people who dont want to make the transition or relocate so the over staffing kind of takes care of itself. They've just about doubled in size with each acquisition with our merger being no different.
But presumably the merger would mean doubling staff already. But the value to bigger companies is increased efficiency. A company of 200 people only needs ~10% more IT than a company of 100 people. If you run a company of 100 with three people, they can probably double in size without adding a single additional person. At most, they might need one more. Not jump to twelve.
-
@lhatsynot said:
Not doubling IT staff... doubling in assets, branches, total users, and computers. Servers aren't necessarily doubling but migration to more robust software and hardware is.
But they are acquiring double staff. If they aren't shedding excess staff, they must be over staffed dramatically.
-
No, they are not doubling staff. They currently have 7 on their team and we have 4. They are willing to keep all 4 of us but in reality they will end up with 2 if I stay (maybe 3). We organized our department differently than they do and they have systems that we "outsourced" to our datacenter that they have in house so the staffing levels makes sense.
-
That's still doubling, it is just that some of your staff is consultants or outsourced. Still basically doubling. If they already have seven people to do the same workload that you guys are doing why would they want to keep more than one of you, if even that many? Other than transitioning over and having someone who knows the background during that period, it seems totally redundant.
-
I dont get your math (and were getting off topic a bit).
They have 7. We have 4 + our data center takes care of some systems so you say that were essentially at 7 too.
Our two banks merge effectively doubling assets ($1.2 B + $1 B = $2.2 B ), users (250ish + 200ish (after we drop about 50 operational staff that aren't needed) = 450ish), and devices (500ish + 500ish = 1000ish) to support except for servers because we will really move onto their systems but they will need to be expanded to handle the more users. Take their 7 and add in our 2 or 3 that are being kept and you end up with 9 or 10 IT staff. Am I understanding it wrong?
-
@lhatsynot said:
Take their 7 and add in our 2 or 3 that are being kept and you end up with 9 or 10 IT staff.
Well you are counting on your seven being reduced to three to make this work, which still seems like a bit of overstaffing - if 7 is adequate for 250, 8 seems like plenty for 450. But having your full staff which is 4 + the DC (which we are estimating is roughly 6-7 people but we don't really know how much the DC is doing) reduced to two or three doesn't seem like retention, it sounds like they are reducing people either by scaring them off or by cancelling contracts. How do you get down to two or three when they are attempting to retain all of you? Where are the others going?
-
One will not make the move or commute. One will move. My boss will probably retire early after sticking around for a while since his title is already taken so he will no longer be my boss. Then me who will not move but
I am willing (just not happy about it) to commute. -
What happens to the data center staff?
-
I'm assuming they won't retain the DC people - so that's the equivalent of loosing 3 (I think Tony said it was three people equivalent) So that's three people released/downsized/fired/etc.
Your other 4, well you've stated that at least 2 will stay, and a third if you stay. So that takes their department from 7 to 9 or 10.
Perhaps all three of you are needed at the new company to handle the extra load, but it really seems like it should be unlikely that they would need you all. the 1000 end user devices should be being taken care of by bench personal, not IT personal (much lower pay). But if you are including that type of work in this as well, OK I can see keeping all three people.
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm assuming they won't retain the DC people - so that's the equivalent of loosing 3 (I think Tony said it was three people equivalent) So that's three people released/downsized/fired/etc.
I was estimating as to their equivalency.
-
The data center services a bunch of smaller community banks so they will just do what they are doing. Losing our business isnt really big in their world.
-
@lhatsynot said:
The data center services a bunch of smaller community banks so they will just do what they are doing. Losing our business isnt really big in their world.
Totally makes sense. But this means that they are not intending to retain everyone but are phasing several out directly and several via attrition brought on by lowering their compensation (through increases in work requirements without equivalent compensation.)
-
@scottalanmiller said:
(through increases in work requirements without equivalent compensation.)
This is an interesting thought - I've never heard of anyone in IT getting raises when a merger happened.. instead they just see their workload increase, as you mentioned...
Almost seems like a great time to visit with management and say " hey don't forget since you're not really adding any additional staff to IT, yet you are doubling our workload, we feel it's only fair that you compensate us for the additional work." - right?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
several via attrition brought on by lowering their compensation (through increases in work requirements without equivalent compensation.)Unfortunately the more I think about it... I think this is me. They essentially already have one of me who is the new bosses right hand man. Bonus just to get through the merger and no salary increase talks. Well f[moderated]!
-
There is a huge amount of pressure on them to reduce head count, I guarantee it. And you are part of the old guard, the culture of a shop that they will want to go away. I've never heard of being on the "absorbed" side of a merger ended up well.
-
Well... Then is anyone hiring?
