SUBMITTED: Tuesday, March 28, 2006
POSTED: Tuesday, March 28, 2006
I wanted to pass on some honest insight to address this issue.
First and foremost, in any company with 16000+ Associates, mistakes are (and will continue to be) made. While we do attempt to train our management staff as best we can, there are some members of management that are substandard, and unfortunately, there are circumstances where associates are unfairly terminated. These situations should be pursued, and in many cases, the company should be made to pay damages. This is the reason we have courts, and lawyers, and mechanisms in place to redress grievances, although we would hope to find resolution before we reach the point of termination.
This being said, I believe overall the company is more than fair in its dealings with associates. I have seen far more cases where we have retained associates when we shouldn't have than cases where we have unfairly terminated an associate. The fact that we have profit sharing at all speaks volumes of how management feels about the employees of the company. GEICO has no responsibility to share its profits with the associates, and associates have no "right" to expect it. Also, if the company makes a decision to terminate an associate, does it truly have a responsibility to wait until after profit sharing is dispersed? Of course not.
I am truly sorry for those that are terminated unfairly, and in those situations, I do hope you get your fair restitution. But many of these postings include wild accusations about conspiracies to intentionally mistreat associates which are obvious fallacies and to any casual observation make the submitter appear ridiculous. The management of this company is not so ignorant as to ignore the fact that such treatment is counterproductive, and that no lastng benefit can be gained from such practices.
To allege that associates are fired to avoid a profit sharing payoff doesn't really make much sense when you consider that if the company wanted to save money, it could eliminate profit sharing entirely, or change the matrix to pay out less. Also consider,the pay out is directly related to growth and combined underwriting ratio, so the profitability of the company is the determining factor in how much is paid out. In years we do poorly we get little or nothing, in years we do well, we get more. In fact: A few years ago we deserved nothing from profit sharing, but the company paid a 4% bonus to everyone anyway. Not the kind of practice you would expect from a company that allegedly fires associates to avoid a payout is it?
I know there are many associates who feel they are terminated because of a personal vendetta, I won't say it never happens, but I feel about that the same way I feel when my 9 year old explains his grades are bad because "The teacher doesn't like me." And let me be the first to tell you that a lawyer telling you that you have a case is not always the best justification for the validity of your grievance.
Is it fair for GEICO to expect its associates to come to work on time, display a positive attitude, be a team player, work to improve performance, and have a genuine concern for servicing its customers? I have never seen an associate who displays these characteristics be unsuccessful, and have never seen a supervisor or manager who would not gladly welcome them on their team.
I am proud to work for GEICO, as are the overwhelming majority of the associates who work for the company. Is our management perfect? Of course not, but they are not a collection of greedy heartless imbeciles conspiring to save a few dollars by terminating innocent hardworking associates to avoid paying profit sharing, and they certainly don't meet late at night and say "Gee,I really don't like Joe Blow, lets make up some stuff so we can fire him."