Below are comments from respondents to the Pay @ IAG Survey. As you can see there are a lot. If you would like to add your comments go to the online forum on the Pay @ IAG Campaign page. 

Other Changes to pay we’d like to see           

• Pay increase to keep in touch with competitors eg AAMI, GIO, Allianz
• What is another staff member doing the same job as me with the same results doing to get a higher pay than me?
• Proof of pay rates, not just verbal information. 
• Incentives for long term employees if they are unable to provide a pay rise.
• Pay should be made reflecting the work we do.
• IAG seems to always be lagging behind in it’s salary packages.
• Staff who are being performance managed due to their poor work etc, I agree with not being eligible for pay for performance increases. 
• To be paid at the market average and not at entry level as I am more than competent in my role as Acct Manager.
• A fair review system involving consultation with staff prior to remuneration being worked out.
• Fair % for staff who do the work no matter what part of the band they sit in.
• Scrap the PYS system, it is far too complicated and management has difficulty in “manufacturing” goals to achieve that relate to individual jobs. 
• Fairness in how STI payments are allocated rather than inconsistently when allocating bonus based on favouritism and politics.
• I haven’t had a pay increase since 2006.
• I’m a sales Executive – no real input into my pay, but comfortable wit what I get. I would like to know where I sit in my group. (My team (10) average) (My team (110) nationally average) Disclose the band.
• They don’t tell you what the market rate is.
• Need to introduce more grade of pay scales.
• Greater reward for higher pressure positions. Work load should be = to pay rate / level.
• STI system needs to be amended particularly the percentage calculations.
• Minimum annual or six monthly increase at CPI or better.
• Penalty rates after 6pm.
• Roles and responsibilities and extra duties recognized.
• In good times pay above CPI – in bad times everyone tighten their belts.

Other Comments about Pay at IAG 

• Inconsistent pay rates between employees who perform the same role.
• 13% Super was deducted from this years STI – it should have been paid on top of the STI.
• Rates don’t seem fair for various job roles.
• Performance expectations are high compared to our pay.
• A very fair company to work for. I love the reward help systems - SIP payments. I understand that I work hard for these benefits but I enjoy them.
• No recourse if you feel review is unsatisfactory. You are told you are the top of the band and there is no room to move, why?
• I feel that the “True” workers of the company are not rewarded fairly for their efforts.
• IAG tells me the market range for my position description, but doesn’t compare me to other staff members doing the same job as me – Why do these figures vary from person to person.
• Award wages and SIPS – every person in a particular department is responsible for the same duties, therefore award (increases) to keep up with the cost of living should be in place. SIPS should be used to reward performance. 
• When a staff members pay is too high in the band to get a pay rise, why do they get paid a bonus that is more than the pay increase that other staff on a lower pay get?
• Manager sat with only a few staff before she resigned. Other staff were handed the review and it wasn’t explained properly by the temporary Manager.  
• No reward for good performance by way of pay rise, not even to meet CPI, because the Company as a whole didn’t do well enough? That’s wrong!
• Even though the cost of living increases every year I don’t get a pay increase unless I didn’t get an increase in the previous year due to the enforcement of the EBA.
• At present long term employees who are performing well are disadvantaged given the decision that those > 20% above the top of band can’t have a pay rise.
• They say it’s linked to performance however when the average is only 3% - 4 % per year this is only inflation.
• I requested a review of my pay in 2007 – Bandings are different in our team despite doing the same work. Inequality – discriminatory – see complaint lodged with the FSU.
• I’m concerned about being singled out and threatened. CGU do not allow for open discussion – nor transparency and will attempt intimidation and advise that pay can only be discussed in the correct forum – which is never. Put a case study together?
• I haven’t had a Rem Review Discussion or letter in 3 years.
• I feel that new employees that get paid new rates that are higher than current employees is unfair.
• Pay is not in sync with industry.
• I only received a 2% pay increase, well below the CPI. Last year I didn’t receive an increase due to number of days absent, however I was docked for those days.
• It needs to be fair and transparent.
• Favouritism has to stop. Jobs for mates has to stop. Staff should be paid for performance.
• The lack of transparency affects all staff. My role has no independent equivalent so am placed within another roles pay range that I believe is unfair.  
• I have worked for IAG for 4 years and on my Rem Review my Manager advised I’m being paid at 80% of the market average.
• I don’t believe you are rewarded for your performance, a bit of favouritism. 
• It’s confusing, doesn’t keep pace with inflation. Even the Managers believe it is a poor system. It’s next to useless.
• The lack of transparency is a deliberate ploy. 
• I think they need to be more transparent and consistent. I am not sure the system is fair across the board.
• After the restructure we are expected to absorb the extra work of people who have left, with no extra pay.
• I’ve worked hard this year and only received a 3% increase. The CPI is 4.5% the average pay increase in insurance is 6% - each year I’m going backwards. Total pay increases over the last 4 years is approx. 9% - well below the CPI.
• Pay reviews are worked on by management prior to a one on one with staff member – they just tell you what the increase will be – staff have no input.
• The area lacking most transparency is base pay increases.  
• IAG structure pay rates in bands but inclusive of Superannuation contributions viz 9%, 13%, 16% – yet staff placement in the pay bands (as a % of the median market pay band ie 90% of median) doesn’t take into account what super level is contributed.
• Seems to be secret and new staff members seem to get pay rises and once you get to the top of the band there is no more pay rises.
• No input into pay review at all. You’re only as good as your TM’s say.
• No communication about blanket approach to no pay increase if performance managed any time throughout the year.
• KPI’s and STI’s don’t match current work provided. Continual moving of the goal post, but not reflected.
• Salary ranges need to be explained at every performance review in depth.
• The averaging of yearly salary is unfair / unworkable. If a team is performing why limit the salary?
• Would like to see pay comparisons with other companies – QBE, Allianz, Suncorp, Zurich etc
• Does not seem to be fair and equitable. People are not fairly rewarded for efforts. No Transparency.
• Pay increases under the CPI are effectively a decrease in real pay.
• Get told that my pay rises are low because I am the top end of my job bracket – which is not fair when I am performing far beyond my role.  
• The % table is not fair. If you are low in the band you get a higher % increase than if you are high in the band, which stinks!
• A far less complex system is required. The banding and groupings are not practical or realistic in practice.
• Pay us what we are worth.
• Counter staff at insurance are paid on the same structure as a teller in a bank despite needing a higher diversity of knowledge.
• Guaranteed annual pay increases to keep in touch with cost of living. Also each year of service should be rewarded as it was many years ago – it was an extra 50cents per hour per year 25 years ago.
• I know assessors at other companies are on better money than NRMA promotes to staff.
• System is very outdated and not reflective of market system.
• Increased from 35 to 37.5 hrs per week 2 or 3 years ago and since then very little pay increases.
• System does not take into account that RTW or reductions are not possible on all claims.
• There seems to be a grave lack of consistency and fairness in how reward bonus is distributed within CGU.
• Fair and achievable bonuses based on achievable targets.
• Fair and reasonable bonuses that represent achievable targets.
• Pay should at least cover cost of living increases.
• I was told they did not have to keep up with cost of living – who knows what the market rate is … they could tell us anything.
• Concerned about how the reward system is calculated. Management receive higher financial rewards.
• Would like to see increases to cover the cost of living at least.
• Cost of living and reward for good performance should both be considered with pay increases.
• Review system was complicated – bonuses were to be rewarded in Feb. current pay ? is far too low.
• Disappointed our increase was below the CPI.
• We were told we were paid a % increase which varied person to person. However the $ value paid was the same?? Not very transparent.
• CPI to be guaranteed
• Management has a new mantra “ Endeavoring to do more with less people.” Jobs to go, staff not replaced – more staff required. 
• Old Boys / Girls Club – Sen Mgt and Directors do well – staff pay for their increases. 
• Management favourites do best.
• I have been with the company for 26 years and find it very hard to get a decent increase. They also include my super in my package
• The system is very hard to understand and differs from year to year. A big % is based on the company’s results (which we have no control over) rather than individual performance.
• Although pay increased it doesn’t seem quite enough.
• There was a lack of system to the STI this year. 
• Not in line with the market.
• Really needs to keep up with CPI.
• Reward good. Got a healthy bonus. Got an increase of about 2.5% this year. 2.8% last year.
• Quite happy with pay – Mgr went thru it with me, told me it was checked against the bands.
• Pretty happy re bonus component. Personally should be paid for the job, cost of living protections are a concern.
• Can get up to x% prefer eg ½ guaranteed pay if company goes bad.
• Needs one significant correction to bring everyone on the correct level.
• Branch staff are poorly paid in comparison to Head Office staff, yet we have to know everything about every product and enquiry. We take abuse from Customers and are pressured to meet Sales Targets. Also there is a lot of stress with Staff Shortages and training new staff, while still trying to meet our Targets. Also we work long hours due to balancing and back office work we do after 5pm. A lot of flexitime is made up in one month which can exceed 10 hours.
• Don’t make Saturdays compulsory.
• I only just started with IAG, not sure how it is ranked with other companies. I think pay rise shouldn’t only be based on your targets.
• Not reflecting market average. No guaranteed annual increase for CPI increase.
• The pay increase doesn’t reflect cost of living.
• Should be paid more rewards.
• Workload keeps increasing. Not paid enough and rewarded for the amount of work done.
• It’s difficult to find out what our pay should be.
• Management understand the way it is calculated (reward) however staff are confused.
• Performance reward is not sufficient. Falls short of performance input.
• Would like to see it “guaranteed”.
• Our pay is not in line with a lot of other insurance companies.
• Payment is very low. For example Allianz does the same job, less work load and get more pay.
• Very low base pay.
• Pay currently well below market. Management always pushes remuneration rather than pay – I want cash!!
• CPI not taken into account
• When we disagree with pay outcome they say no. Not interested in retaining staff.
• IAG underpays their consultants – should pay penalty shifts where applicable eg staff commencing shift from 12pm.
• I feel I have been rewarded fairly for my performance but others have told me they are unhappy – they seem unsure how their performance has been rated and unclear of rating system used.
• We are not told which industries have been used as comparison. Similar jobs averaged in research are not transparent.
• IAG states they pay market rates, but they are also aware that similar jobs are paid up to $80k approx. 
• I believe pay is accurate for the job I do.
• I find that IAG pay and reward is transparent and I have no issues witth the pay review system .
• Don’t know how we compare with other companies or against external market or against other assessors internally doing the same job.
• I moved to a lower paid position and retained my salary.
• Not unhappy – but there is no consistent plan to cover absences due to staff shortages.
• Crap!!!