I caught this on NPR on the way in this AM... Cover Oregon giving $650K in bonuses www.oregonlive.com/.../cover_oregon_retention_bonus koin.com/2014/06/25/cover-oregon-offers-staff-retention-bonuses/ www.washingtontimes.com/.../cover-oregon-offe... Hard to believe that they have the nerve to do this..if I had performed so poorly, I would have received a pink slip, not a bonus
Although I'm not a fan of the program and its obvious inefficiency, I think it's clear that if they continue to suffer from high turnover, they'll likely have to pay significantly more than $650K in new hire and training costs over the span of the next 9 months. Sometimes you have to give a little to save a little more.
It all begins with competent management and a reasonable agenda. It is easy to see the neither exist and until a time that they do, you will continue to have high turnover. If long term savings is truly the issue, lets review what happened to the 300 million already pent that has accomplished nothing.
Isn't that what they did when they scrapped the crappy website that has cost a ton and accomplished nothing? They're acknowledging screwups, and trying to make choices to reduce future losses. That's a good thing.
In every instance that I have had to take over on a troubled project, first order is to take measure of the quality of the current employees relative to their position, and replace or reassign as needed. This whole program has been a disaster lead by incompetent people, both need to be replaced. To think that the state would throw more money to retain those that have proven failures is a farce.
BURN IT ALL DOWN! REMOVE ALL OF THE CRONIES IN WASHINGTON DC! Anarchy in the South! The South Rides again!... wait where am I going with this?!
ouch. edit: I was trying to point out that it seems people are exaggerating the severity of the problem. If their contracts promise them bonuses, how should it be handled? If they worked for a bank involved in the fiscal crisis, I assume you agree they also should not receive bonuses.
The bonuses are not performance based, and they're not being handed out right now. They're being offered 9 months from now, for people who stick around, so we don't have to pay the excessive cost of high turnover. That's a smart move.
I do respect your opinion, and in business, it is common to follow that line of thinking. Where I differ is in the desire to retain employees that have proven to be inept.
Except in this case, it is only the administration who has proven to be inept, not the actual workers. I'm sure that employees who are fired for incompetence will not be eligible for the bonus.
I guess. Does that solve the problem of excessive turnover? Why not have a competitive salary from the start in lieu of the 650K in bonuses? Probably a lot more to it, but gut feeling is to say stick around and we will give a bonus sound like it might make people stick around for 9 mos, but wouldn't motivate people to work hard. Basically stay nine mos, then get a bonus . . . what is to stop them from leaving then? (If that is how it works) Why not merge the bonus into a salary that draws the most competent people to the job . . . or make the bonus performanced based 9 mos from now. With all the bad press Cover Oregon has got and money they have wasted, to hear another 650K in bonuses is likely to raise skepticism in the general public. But links didn't click on articles for me so again, probably a lot more to this than I think . . . they sure could use a good PR person.