SECU - Just Asking !

It’s my understanding Tyrone was blindsided by this as he approved merit as submitted. Hard day for Tyrone and RSVP’s. Jared rejected and then wouldn’t give any direction on how to administer.

Jared has done as much as anyone to ruin morale with MSS schedules and now this. Definitely no reward for long term employees.

Branch employee (not a manager) asking a question here. Can we get more information on what is going on with Jared and the merit increases? Thank you.

But wait…there’s more! And there it is, wondered how long it would take for this to get out. What is the end game…because yes that’s what it is a game. Do you want all long term employees to hit the road so you can hire your army of know nothings to yes sir you? Talk about busting the morale, that was already low, to a new all time low. The question is, did Operations get the same email about lowering their merit given???? The suspicion is NO. While the member facing employees take another hit for serving in the frontline, if Operations get whatever their managers awarded, I call BS. Put them in a branch dealing with the members and let’s see how long they last. Sounds like Jared likes to play mind games since his boy that brought him is no longer with us……but is he really gone, no he lives on through his worthless cronies he brought with him. So as we run off all of us long term employees, I hope the newbies can explain to the membership why they can’t help them because they don’t know how. Standing ovation Jared….you once again confirmed you are indeed a jackass and need to, as we say in them there hills, GET ON OUTTA HERE..GO ON…GET.

Jared and Leigh need to send out an email STAT explaining this since they preach transparency. Anyone else remember that buzz word? All of these problems need to stay on the forefront in order to get these candidates eligible to run and we vote them out. Time to get to firing.

btw, Mr. Benesh hates being a topic on this blog. It really gets under his skin! So I advise all branch and MSS employees to let him know how you really feel about this situation.

I also feel bad for the rsvp’s because they are going to feel the pressure from him now for releasing the information.

Not sure what is behind all of this, but we've probably heard enough to get the general picture.

Here's some background on all this (caught some flack from employees by trying to move on!). Mr. Jared Benesh is the EVP for SECU "Branch Support and Member Experience Transformation" (pretty impressive title!)

In July of each year, SECU allocates funds for Board budgeted employee merit salary increases. On the branch side this is usually done from the "bottom up".

Branch managers and branch supervisors make recommendations for merit raises, since they are the folks with the first hand knowledge of their employees' performance during the year.

Those recommendations are reviewed and "balanced" (since some branches may perform better than others in a year) by Branch SVPs who supervise multiple branches.

Recommendations then are submitted to the executive level for review, further "balancing" if necessary, and approval. Usually a pretty straight forward process with merit increases effective in August.

This year Mr. Benesh apparently did something unusual and denied all the branch recommendations and told the branch leaders to start over. As you might imagine, that caused somewhat of an uproar among SECU's 275 branch offices.

Not sure how Mr. Benesh will be evaluated on this example of "Branch Support", but it does help explain why there has been a noticeable decline in the "Member Experience Transformation " over the last 3 years.

Really can't make this stuff up, no one would believe it.

tyrants bully they don't lead...

Everyone in HR practically received a promotion before the promotion freeze was installed. That didn’t make news now did it?

@2:42, maybe you should consider that there are two sides here, and you're not fully informed on the situation.

10:10 What's your side of the truth?

@1010 please do tell. So you are saying the branches didn't have to regroup and rekey? Because that's sure what we were told we had to do and did this week.

@10:15... any alternative posts / views are suppressed so not taking the bait. suffice it to say, employees will get merits per board budget and the 2nd review will take care of top performers in particular.

Jared Benish clearly isn’t cut out for this job and has no empathy for working class people. He needs to be a man and resign.

Why is a second review required to take care of top performers?

@2:19…..so what you’re saying is you know first hand what the strategy was with the redo???? So if it only affects the branch and MSS employees, then what you saying is, if the hit came to the VP, ABM, MSM and SVP, while some of these are the hardest working employees in some branches, their work ethic and performance doesn’t matter???? And how is “holding back funds” beneficial to anyone? Sorry, just confused on your statement as to how not giving the full merit around the branch helps anyone. And whether you have a different story to tell, straight to the RSVPs, Jared(possibly you @2:19) said everyone was told to hold back funds, which has never been the case in years past. So whatever the 2 sides are, it’s pretty clear what the truth is with the having to redo an entire state of branch and MSS employee merit based raises. Not sure what other explanation anyone needs when Jared is the only person to reject and send them back….Maybe you can help us understand the other side of the story. Not baiting, just asking since there are a lot of people who have been affected by this decision. And we’ve yet to here if Operations had to hold back funds as well. Everyone’s guess is absolutely not since they have always been at the top for everything from being able to promote to create nonsense titles just to promote someone. So, @2:19, can you please help us at the bottom of the totem pole understand what just happened? Morale is at an all time new low in the branches, but we pretty sure no one cares.

The reason for the hold back was to make merit more equitable across the branches. A great hard working employee in a branch with 10 employees and lower total salaries should be able to get the same raise as a great hardworking employee at a branch with 20 employees and higher total salaries. This is an attempt to reward employees based on performance without the individual branch or district restricted merit budget. Has technically always been this way. Just not utilized to this magnitude and from an evp, rather than the district svp.

@1:15. thanks for elaborating. So the story here is an EVP looking out for the best interests of top performing employees. Perhaps not the scandal it was represented to be.

@1:15 can we expect an email from Mr. Benesh explaining just this if this is the exact explanation as to the decision? Since he made this decision, I’m sure the branch employees would like the explanation straight from the horses mouth, not down the chain. If this is the EVP looking in the best interests of employees as @5:23 stated…..

@1:15 & @5:23, so basically what you’re saying is, if you work in a larger branch where there is more traffic and transactions, you should be penalized for working and carrying a heavier load than someone who works in a smaller, less traffic, less transactions? Sorry, just understanding how that is really fair if that is indeed the reason. Each branch is awarded enough merit to award their employees. So if you’re holding back funds, why distribute the amount they were given in the first place. A whole lot of unanswered questions and clearly if anyone works in a larger, busier branch it’s clearly a strike against them. And in most of these larger, older branches…..that’s where your longevity is, which clearly means nothing to anyone outside of the branch/member network. Anybody can hire Joe off the street and start him out making more than some long term employees because he may have a little bit of experience hitting a button. But in reality, who’s better in serving the membership….someone with years of SECU experience or someone straight off the street who just tells them whatever they want to whether it’s right or wrong???? If taking a poll, I’d say the person who knows the ins and outs and can give the correct answer….long term SECU employee. Just food for thought.

I'd be careful assuming the branch with less employees has a lower workload. Larger volume branches have more employees to make "workload" similar to that of a smaller branch. In fact, you may find that branches with less employees actually carry more of a workload as there are less employees to share responsibilities. Like it was mentioned before. Svps have been holding back funds for years to redistribute merit to higher performing employees within their district. This is no different other than larger scale.

@9:52, that's not all what is being done and said. no penalty for employees working at large branches. it's about job performance at the individual level, not about volume. it simply means a top performer at a smaller branch shouldn't be penalized because of the size of the branch, and that middle to low performances should get larger raises, just because they work in a larger branch.

benesh and brady. "Air"B&B Leighduhhship

We couldn’t write the current President a loan without calling Trust Services. No one saw that as a problem until the last month. Yes, we have huge cover ups and have been fed lies!

Why should Leigh need a loan if she’s making these big bucks??

Any clue on what her credit score was? Did she get a good rate? Us inquiring minds want to know.

They have accountability to the Eight Board members who hired Hayes.(the three we elected last year have no power--yet) Leigh and her minions are doing the Eight's biding. Get these four on the ballot, get everyone you know to vote for them in Sept. and Finally Saner heads will be in the majority on the SECU Board.

SECU has a great chance to be won back. If you wanna stick it to the “man”. Here’s your chance folks. Leigh wants this place to become a status quo workplace where workers are easily replaced and the membership is taken advantage of. Leigh, Hayes, and remaining 8 represent what’s wrong with our country. GREED