Friday, July 18, 2008

End of Week News


Eddo said...

In the up to speed with Sonny Shannon article it stated - "Many complaints were heard about evaluations that were given in which great disparitys between these evaluations and past evaluations are evident."

I have seen this same thing happen at the SFV plant. I had one hell of a fight getting people what they deserved. One assessment I worked on was argued over for, believe it or not, 4 1/2 months past it's due date. It came down to me being ordered by Mark Kurtich, to change the assessment to the way that he wanted it to be. I argued the point as to who the assessor was since I was the one signing on the line of "assessor". I was told that I was, but to change it anyway. I was even told by HR Rep Risella Baeza that she had read some of the assesments that were given before she was hired in and she stated that those were too high. I asked her how she would know this since she wasn't there at the time to witness the performance. Of course, she had no answer. What an idiot. Alma Perez tried the same crap and I wouldn't let her get away with it either.

Folks, when you are given an assesment that is not fair, you need to be on your toes, and be ready to push back. Keep track of you homeruns throughout the year and make sure they are included in your assessment. If you don't like waht you see, I wouldn't sign it. That really pisses them off.

In my opinion, they will use the assessments to weed out the union folks. The negotiating team should include assessments in their contract talks. If you can eliminate them, do it!

Eddo said...

Another trick, the stooges will use is to downgrade particular assessments and when this is done, the mediocre ones that are left alone, sometimes come out ahead of the downgraded ones. I feel this is purposely done on occasion. Beware of this trick. The assement should be left to the assessor alone.