It's unfortunately more complicated than that, I'm in a large group and all the EDFs have been done by a "specialized external firm"...
Hello
also coeff 305 and E9 in the new quotation.
It seems consistent/business
1 Like
Hello
I'm currently coeff 305 as well but in the future D8... Indeed E9 seems coherent
2 Likes
If you are in a large group, you necessarily have a CSE that has gone to the coal to discuss with your management. The best thing to do is to talk to them about it.
Let's say that there is a lot of grumbling at all levels and the CSE (at least on my website) brings up all the dissatisfactions but I find it interesting to know a little in other companies how we are considered
1 Like
I @DoubleL you... If it happens, we complain when it's normal!
.
.
.
.
.
.
/!\ SPOILER ALERT /!\
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
NO!
Hello. I don't know my coefficient. But I've been working as a "draftsman/designer" for 10 years now. We were categorized as "design technicians". That is to say that in this title, there are also other jobs than draftsman/designer. And all the design technicians are classified D7.
We were told that what was classified was not the person, but the job. That is to say, the salary is not a function of the classification, but of the person. But how will it work when it comes to wage negotiations? We'll see about that in a short time.
In any case, companies had no choice. Either they remained within the metallurgy agreement and they complied with the new rules. Either way, they had to change their agreement. At least that's what we were told.
But where I went "crazy" is that we were sent a table with all the company's professions, where we see all the grades of all the professions, on the 6 evaluation points. And when you see that some people have a value of 9/10 in the "contribution" criterion, while we have 3/10, it clearly makes you complain. But on the other hand, it gives an idea of people's salary range... And it gives an idea of the "contempt" of some people who do the work sold to customers.
3 Likes
Companies have not had the choice of this change in agreement, of course, but for the rating it is our managers who rate, I see that with you our profession also seems to be underrated
Ho put** D7!
Indeed, as long as it stays in-house, it's fine. But it's especially for the search for a new job that it will get stuck
3 Likes
D7 indeed it's disappointing, you managed to get your grading grid back?
Hello
FYI: in a large group it goes from D-7 for a draftsman to E-9 for a level 2 draftsman. The level 1 draftsman is logically between the 2. The job descriptions are logically different between the 3.
This classification seems fair to me, for my part we have the same FDE draughtsman level 1 and 2 with different descriptions
Hi all
I am part of a small structure and it's the same, we don't know the corresponding coef yet.
Theoretically we should know this at the beginning of January (this mandatory femininian month).
For my part, I think that HR is outdated because it was based on old acquisitions and old job descriptions. Now the rating changes completely and since they have absolutely no knowledge of what each person in the company does (big or small), it poses several problems. Depending on the company, the same position can be different with this new table, if you manage to put a task on a higher case, it's difficult for them to refuse.
I will work in this direction (experiences, external internal contact, responsibility, expertise etc...)
on this one, the CSE is not the right option for me because HR will see it as an aggression. There needs to be a discussion between the manager and HR to understand and validate the new Coef.
I talk, I talk but I haven't done anything on my side for the moment. In any case, thank you for sharing your feelings and your experience.
It's not that simple, it's the job that is graded, by the employee...
Hello
I am in a large group and in the same situation as you, and also a member of the CSE. Several points to enlighten your lanterns:
- The designation of the job description is internal to your company.
- The rating concerns your job description and not your actual work, so be sure to dissect your job description and add trivial things that you do and that will allow you to justify the move to a higher rating in the rating table.
- We have 1 month from the submission of the quotation to contest it, by arguing.
- our CSE was not invited to set up the job descriptions and their rating.
- the CFDT has just sent Renault to court regarding the implementation of this new agreement in several of their factories.
5 Likes
Having been immersed in it a little, it's a gas plant and they didn't think of creating an abacus to have a basis of equivalence with the current classifications.
The first point to understand is that we do not rate a person but a job, and it is quite difficult to do as the skills can be different between 2 people in the same job.
So, for example, we have created a few "beginner" and "experienced" type things in the job descriptions for certain positions, otherwise it would have been complicated.
We are moving from a rating system to the person to the rating of a trade.
In addition, reading the rating sheet is really linked to interpretation, so-and-so can be considered in a certain category while it will be classified in another compared to the other job descriptions. For me, I find it quite complex to make this rating. There will be failures, over- and under-ratings.
By noting our BE, we have arrived at the limit of the transition to the frame, so the possibility of evolution is zero, or else we have to cheat by undernoting...
This is still interpretation.
4 Likes
Hello
In view of the messages and my feelings about this new agreement, it's a big blur...
In theory, at the moment, we are not supposed to "lose" money, whether in terms of the seniority bonus for example.
But if we are led to change companies, this is where we will really see the changes: already at the level of the quotation, which can go from D8 to E10 (according to the feedback on the forum), the modification of the calculation to obtain the day of seniority, etc...
It's not easy and everyone seems lost...
3 Likes
Bjr,
Here is the note just dropped, I am classified E9 which seems to be correct for our function as a designer.
Happy New Year's Eve.
May the force be with you.
2 Likes
Hello
I start from the principle that if your HR department does not hear your legitimate remarks and that it agrees to the latest updates of the agreement without taking into account your profile and your skills, then ask yourself if your company deserves you. There is a lot of work in the design office at the moment.
Good luck.
7 Likes
Hello everyone, and Happy New Year 2024,
This modification of the collective agreement represents a huge amount of work for everyone and a big psychological impact. My opinion (always easier when it's done!) is that it should have been spread over more than 12 months and included several stages of presentations, exchanges and assessment before acting.
This new collective agreement is accompanied by a reduction in minimum wages, which cannot be avoided a decrease in the value of our work.
In our company (about 300 employees) where technology represents a major part of our value, we start at D7 for a designer and finish at F11 for the Project Managers (team of 2 or 3 designers).
What is most striking is the level of hiring that is placed at Engineer to be able to enter the BE. This entry level is linked to a continuous decline in the level of French education for decades, as a result: engineers will have to be motivated to accept a position as a D7 designer!! And what are we going to offer to the BAC PRO, the BTS and the BUT?