So many public debates on compensation and benefits in the last few years and so little accurate information.
Let's look at just two. Reporting on Lehman Brothers' cash compensation in 2008 incited personal threats to many who were not receiving compensation at all, but rather retention bonuses.The dollars were outrageous given a number of factors, but if the information we were discussing was actually accurate, the arguments about how to resolve the compensation issues may have made more sense to the public.
And though many of us are glad it happened, we are all still pretty vague on the benefits of Health Care Reform. Oh, we've got the picture on pre-existing conditions and adult children coverage. But can we describe Health Care in a paragraph and discuss the impact it will have on us and others? Doubtful. Neither the Administration nor the media has given us a clear, succinct way to talk about the value to each of us, or even the top three problems that Health Care Reform has solved for us personally or for the nation as a whole.
As a communications expert in Total Rewards, I can't tell you how frustrated I feel when I know that my colleagues and I could straighten some of these things out in the space of a few 8 1/2" by 11" pages. And I'm ready to name names if anyone comes asking for help. Colleagues who could not only explain the ins and outs accurately and concisely, but also clarify what would frighten or confuse people and how to help people deal with these reactions.
Now we have the challenges and counter challenges about the over and under payment of salaries and benefits for state workers. Confusion reigns and misguided discussion abounds. For example, I recently heard a local reporter confidently tell someone that state workers are underpaid. How does she know? And what about the other rewards, funded by their state, that would be included on employees' total compensation statement? Don't they count, too?
Given the recent tenor of debates of this kind -- and looking at the disastrous indifference to respectful communication underway in a number of states -- I was pleasantly surprised to read Saturday's New York Times article, "In a Battle Over State Payrolls, Data Shows a Mixed Picture". They even ran a second, balancing article entitled, "Who's Paid More? Experts Can Disagree".
Because The New York Times found a number of studies with competing and somewhat murky analyses of the issues, the Times decided to do its own analysis, with the help of demographers. The results yield,
" . . . a complicated picture, one that highlights the variation in pay from state to state and occupation to occupation, and one that does not fit neatly into a one-size-fits-all approach to cost cutting."
Not a surprise to those of us who work in this field.The reporters also acknowledge that,
"The census data analyzed by The Times do not include information on pensions and other benefits, which is crucial for a fuller comparison because public sector workers typically receive more in benefits than workers in the private sector do. California's corrections officers, for instance, can retire at 50 with pensions worth 90 percent of their salaries, an option open to very few private sector workers. New Jersey pays 92 percent of the cost of health care for its workers, much more than private companies typically pay . . ."
Here we have a newspaper and reporters, Michael Luo and Michael Cooper, who are making a sincere, information-based and thoughtful effort at a problem definition related to compensation and benefits. Their intention seems to be to help their readers understand enough to make their own (non-emotional) judgments. Perhaps with a plan that more thoughtful discussion will ensue.
I'd give Mike and Mike an Oscar! How about you?
They are illuminating the issues, using analysis and experts in an effort to be balanced, and showing that the issues are far from simple -- no matter what the various Governors want us to believe. In addition, the research that they sponsored ferreted out an interesting finding, especially for those of us in the compensation business.
"Less educated workers on state payrolls, however, tend to do better than their counterparts in the private sector. The median wages of state workers without bachelor's degrees are higher than those in the private sector in 30 states . . ."
Check out the article online and add an encouraging comment, will 'ya. The U.S. needs a lot more nominees for balanced, fact-based compensation and benefits communications on next year's red carpet. A Best Actor or Actress (or Best Writer), for all those who make every effort to speak to and about employees (or other groups of citizens) with respect, no matter what kind of pickle we find ourselves in.
Margaret O'Hanlon is founder and principal of re:Think Consulting. She has decades of experience teaming up with clients to ensure great Human Resource ideas deliver valuable business results. Margaret brings deep expertise in total rewards communication to the dialog at the Café; before founding re:Think Consulting, she was a Principal in Total Rewards Communications with Towers Perrin. Margaret earned her M.S. and Ed.S. in Instructional Technology at Indiana University. Creative writing is one of her outside passions, along with Masters Swimming.
Comments