Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Another One About The Table of Organization

This was a memo I sent to the chairman of the Ad-Hoc Committee on T.O. way back in September 9, 2003. I just want to put it here as a blog so I could preserve the content and that you dudes could read it. I have sent this to all VPs and Departments of CDC noon panahon na yon.

TO:       EVP - VJIL
             Chairman - Ad Hoc Committe on T.O.

Much as would like to exalt and commend the management for its effort in promoting employees by means of expediting the Table of Organization, I must, in behalf of my colleagues, express some complaints regarding the present status of its implementation and therefore seek answers for the issues herein discussed. These sentiments are not mine alone, but are shared by all employees who had decided to apply to the job vacancies as posted on the bulletin boards.

The jobs posted on the bulletin boards enumerated all the qualifications necessary to attain such a post. All employees deemed that those set of qualifications is complete, final and executory. The result of which is that many of us applied based solely on those qualifications.

However, just yesterday (8 Sept. 2003), we were surprised to know that certain pre-qualifications were imposed. That, every applicant should pass a minimum of 65% of these pre-qualifications named Rating Form to be eligible for interview. We find this addendum or codicil to be an unethical imposition and thus question the sincerity of the whole process. We have to ask, why is it only now that these pre-qualifications were imposed? Why not at the beginning before even one job vacancy was posted on the bulletin boards?

Posting these pre-qualification before the actual job posting could have spared so many personnel from applying and prevented the accumulation of application papers and their attachement at the HRD office.

Among the inclusions subject for this complaint is the requirement of an applicant to have no tardiness for the past six months. Need we point out that tardiness on anyone's part could never subjugate the operations of the corporation? CDC was never a factory nor an assembly line that the absence of an employee for a certain amount of time causes a delay in production or caused dissatisfaction on a customer. Being late is never a manifestation that one could not perform his work properly or proficiently. There are also legit reasons for being late.

Another one is the inclusion of the performance appraisal form. Time and time again, this has proven to be subjective and is dictated on whether there is a collusion or collision between the appraiser and the appraised. Even the most non-performing asset among us will give himself a high rate and the humblest among us will rate himself humbly so.

I find the whole Rating Form itself is flawed. For instance, if a certain job vacancy has only one applicant and though he met the criteria as written on the job requirements but is in collision with his manager or direct supervisor and has legitimate reasons for accumulating six tardiness on a given month, will this necessarily mean that he will not get the post? Or will he be made an exemption and gain the post?

We feel that these new set of prequalification should not be included as prerequisite for a job since their inclusion were not predetermined during the formulation of the job requirements. The rating form should have been published before the actual job posting.

We ask the better judgement of the T.O. Committee to forfeit these impositions and level the playing field devoid of unwarranted technicalities.

In behalf of my colleagues,



No comments: