As mentioned last week after my BART interview, I was asked to provide my dependability calender for the previous year. Wouldn’t you know it, the ONLY time in the past 11 years I played hookie from work and it comes back to bite me in the ass. No big deal, as I see it. I still consider myself very dependable. But that is not what this is about.
In my search for my calendar, I ran across my 2005 Performance Review on a new Intranet based system the company uses to move away from the traditional paper reviews. I quickly scanned the review and noticed a discrepancy that quickly frustrated me. Recall this is my 2005 Performance Review, not 2006. This is from the past year, which as far as I can tell has been over for…oh 7, damn near 8 months. But what I found pissed me off!
It seems someone…no wait, I won’t be that vague, it seems the department manager has it in for me. Because it is my assumption [and yes I know what assume means] that she has maliciously gone into my 2005 review and changed the ‘Communication’ selection to reflect negatively against me. We are judged on a 0-5 scale, with ‘3’ being considered ‘Successful.’ I read that section closely and most of was the same as presented to me back in February:
Steve, you translate organizational direction and goals in a simple and meaningful way. You share information as appropriate in an open manner.
Steve, you convey technical information in a clean and concise manner and answer questions both clearly and concisely.
That was how it originally read, with Communication receiving a ‘3’ or ‘Successful.’ Unfortunately, there had been some alteration along with a score change to ‘2’ or ‘Needs Improvement.’ to what was originally written that included,
One caution, sometimes your concise sytle of communication can be perceived as both abrupt and terse, so please try to keep that in mind when answering phones. Stephen, you do not consistently sustain or support an environment where people feel able to express themselves honestly, You communicate effectively to some employees, but not all. You are generally respectful but can be abrupt with others when their viewpoints differ. Steve, you convey technical information in a clear and concise manner, but once again, at times you come across rather abrupt.
It seems management loves to repeat themselves, as if that gets their message across. Regardless of what has transpired since 2006, I find it wrong to reflect that information on a period of time that has expired. I also point my finger at the department manager, because she [the empty skirt] is the only one who calls me by my full name. You know what, my mother never called me by my full name, Stephen unless I was in trouble. Last I knew, this woman is not my mother. She might see me 5 minutes a week. A week! I have usually left prior to her arrival. So these comments are somewhat odd since she is never around when I am working.
I only bring this up because our company is going to “reward” its employees with a pay raise in the coming week. These raises will be based on your performance over the past year [that’s 2005] and a portion of 2006. While the raise, as I was told will be between 4% – 7%, those negative comments alone are sure to cut me out of a few percent of this small pay raise.
This is the same company that took, at will damn near 30% of pay since 2001 and now we must prove to them again, we are worth a 4% to 7% pay increase. *cough* Bullshit! *cough* I guess this is better than a swat in the ass, right? They could be taking more from us since for another quarter they will not be making money. *sigh* I have brought this to the attention of my direct supervisor who presented the review to me earlier in the year. If he is not willing to do anything about it, then I will escalate the issue to Human Resources if need be. I don’t believe this is any way to treat any employee.
Just one more reason why I cannot wait to get the hell out of here. The resignation letter is already typed up, just need to add the date and sign it.