Cover Oregon celebrates its success, hands out bonuses!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Although I'm not a fan of the program and its obvious inefficiency, I think it's clear that if they continue to suffer from high turnover, they'll likely have to pay significantly more than $650K in new hire and training costs over the span of the next 9 months. Sometimes you have to give a little to save a little more.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Although I'm not a fan of the program and its obvious inefficiency, I think it's clear that if they continue to suffer from high turnover, they'll likely have to pay significantly more than $650K in new hire and training costs over the span of the next 9 months. Sometimes you have to give a little to save a little more.
Click to expand...

It all begins with competent management and a reasonable agenda. It is easy to see the neither exist and until a time that they do, you will continue to have high turnover.

If long term savings is truly the issue, lets review what happened to the 300 million already pent that has accomplished nothing.
 
DaLincolnJones said:
If long term savings is truly the issue, lets review what happened to the 300 million already pent that has accomplished nothing.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what they did when they scrapped the crappy website that has cost a ton and accomplished nothing? They're acknowledging screwups, and trying to make choices to reduce future losses. That's a good thing.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Isn't that what they did when they scrapped the crappy website that has cost a ton and accomplished nothing? They're acknowledging screwups, and trying to make choices to reduce future losses. That's a good thing.
Click to expand...

In every instance that I have had to take over on a troubled project, first order is to take measure of the quality of the current employees relative to their position, and replace or reassign as needed.

This whole program has been a disaster lead by incompetent people, both need to be replaced. To think that the state would throw more money to retain those that have proven failures is a farce.
 
BURN IT ALL DOWN! REMOVE ALL OF THE CRONIES IN WASHINGTON DC! Anarchy in the South! The South Rides again!... wait where am I going with this?!
 
Eastoff said:
BURN IT ALL DOWN! REMOVE ALL OF THE CRONIES IN WASHINGTON DC! Anarchy in the South! The South Rides again!... wait where am I going with this?!
Click to expand...

Good question. You're the BGD of the off topic forum.
 
maxiep said:
Good question. You're the BGD of the off topic forum.
Click to expand...

ouch.

edit: I was trying to point out that it seems people are exaggerating the severity of the problem. If their contracts promise them bonuses, how should it be handled? If they worked for a bank involved in the fiscal crisis, I assume you agree they also should not receive bonuses.
 
Last edited:
Treaty_of_Batum said:
Total BS they hand out bonuses after the fiasco called Cover Oregon.
Click to expand...

The bonuses are not performance based, and they're not being handed out right now. They're being offered 9 months from now, for people who stick around, so we don't have to pay the excessive cost of high turnover.

That's a smart move.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
The bonuses are not performance based, and they're not being handed out right now. They're being offered 9 months from now, for people who stick around, so we don't have to pay the excessive cost of high turnover.

That's a smart move.
Click to expand...


I do respect your opinion, and in business, it is common to follow that line of thinking. Where I differ is in the desire to retain employees that have proven to be inept.
 
DaLincolnJones said:
I do respect your opinion, and in business, it is common to follow that line of thinking. Where I differ is in the desire to retain employees that have proven to be inept.
Click to expand...

Except in this case, it is only the administration who has proven to be inept, not the actual workers. I'm sure that employees who are fired for incompetence will not be eligible for the bonus.
 
Denny should offer us bonuses for sticking around here.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
The bonuses are not performance based, and they're not being handed out right now. They're being offered 9 months from now, for people who stick around, so we don't have to pay the excessive cost of high turnover.

That's a smart move.
Click to expand...

I guess. Does that solve the problem of excessive turnover? Why not have a competitive salary from the start in lieu of the 650K in bonuses? Probably a lot more to it, but gut feeling is to say stick around and we will give a bonus sound like it might make people stick around for 9 mos, but wouldn't motivate people to work hard. Basically stay nine mos, then get a bonus . . . what is to stop them from leaving then? (If that is how it works)

Why not merge the bonus into a salary that draws the most competent people to the job . . . or make the bonus performanced based 9 mos from now. With all the bad press Cover Oregon has got and money they have wasted, to hear another 650K in bonuses is likely to raise skepticism in the general public. But links didn't click on articles for me so again, probably a lot more to this than I think . . . they sure could use a good PR person.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top