- Messages
- 2,553
- Facility
- Command Center
Just remember no one wanted to vote for term limits at convention. Ergo everything is set by people who are already at where they want to be or in a place it does not affect them.
MATH/ National average
- Thread starter rugbydog11
- Start date
Just remember no one wanted to vote for term limits at convention. Ergo everything is set by people who are already at where they want to be or in a place it does not affect them.
breakaway2000
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,693
Interesting...I've struggled to determine when they factor in retirements. All I've heard in passing is if you don't retire in 6 months after you're eligible, they expect you to go to mandatory. Trying to determine if they count people against you that are approaching eligibility or just people that hit X amount of time to mandatory.
Andrew
Member
- Messages
- 130
I think it's anyone eligible within 2 years that is in with projected retirements. MJ can probably answer that better than me.
breakaway2000
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,693
My facility has 1 with under 2 years til they're eligible and 1 that is less then a year from eligible and neither are calculated in our number, maybe 2 years to mandatory?
Stinger
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,496
I must have missed that, I thought I saw the national average at 82.x%?
edit: Nevermind....I see you're all talking about the projected staffing.
Andrew
Member
- Messages
- 130
If it were 82.x% I'd be cat 1.
CaptainObvious
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 2,140
The actual onboard CPC average is 82.3
Andrew
Member
- Messages
- 130
Which is just another reason to piss me off because they go off of that projected BS number of 87.x%
breakaway2000
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,693
Section 3.5.3 of the SOP. I'll paraphrase but if releasing one person drops you below the national average for current cpc or projected, it won't be allowed.
Stinger
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,496
They use both actual CPC percentage, and projected CPC percentage.
Both are equally as important when releasing someone.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure this answers my question. How do you become listed as exempt? That explanation, I think, just explains the standard. Meaning if you're Cat2 you can let someone go because the numbers after that person is removed keeps you above the natl avg still. Certain facilities are seemingly randomly assigned exempt status on the list I don't get it. So based on staffing numbers you will either be Cat1 or Cat2 or none in the PPT. But the Vacancy list also has facilities listed as Cat1/2 exempt. Thank you.
Stinger
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,496
If a facility has Cat 2 numbers, but losing one person takes that facility below the National Average, the facility is considered Cat 2-exempt.
breakaway2000
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,693
To explain it as simply as possible
Cat 1 - 90% or higher for both current and projected CPC
Cat 2 - above the national average but below 90%
Cat 1/2 exempt - you meet the criteria for Cat 1 or 2, but if you release one person one of those numbers would drop below the national average so it won't be allowed.
In no way am I blaming you for this as I'm happy you're looking for answers, but I truly believe the reason this hasn't been overturned is the majority of our workforce either isn't looking to transfer or has no idea how horrible of a process this truly is. I just wish there was some way to educate the masses on how truly awful this process is. MJ has done everything he can up to this point and I'd still venture to guess less then 10% of our workforce can describe the ins and outs of how this process works.
- Messages
- 3,172
Again thanks for clearing that up, the next question that is shared by many at my facility is in reference to the projected formula. Why, if it's such a crucial aspect of this process, is there no attempt to assign an accurate projected number? The training success rates that are used in the projected number are a laughing stock. It might as well be any random number. For example, they have the same percentage assigned to all 7-9 up/downs nationwide based on the samples from 2009-2012 like that average is in anyway representative of a specific facility in that group. And also 09-12 is way too far into the past.
So in this example my facility, which had a success rate of 100% from 09-12 is assigned ~69% in the projected formula. Therefore artificially dragging our number down.
So in this example my facility, which had a success rate of 100% from 09-12 is assigned ~69% in the projected formula. Therefore artificially dragging our number down.
