Fact #1- many corporate budgets aren't yet final.
Fact #2 - an easy place that the finance folks will come back to on the expense side is the "fully loaded" cost of an employee. The finance folks are going to come back to this because when the budget doesn't work, they can do one of two things - they can add more revenue or they can cut expenses.
The revenue already looks like a hockey stick, so they'll look to the expense side on items like "FTE load" first...
You know the fully loaded cost. That's where you give the finance folks the % load that represents what it's going to cost to provide payroll taxes, benefits, etc. on behalf of your workforce. If you're a sandbagger, you gave them a number like 30% of the salary load. If you're painfully realistic and used to living on the edge from a budget perspective, you gave them a number like 18%.
When they come back to this number, your reaction depends on how much sand is in your number.
Want to see what a crazy FTE cost looks like? One that will make your 30% seem like a bargain to the finance folks? Try the fully loaded FTE cost for a soldier in Afghanistan. More from the New York Times:
"The estimated $1 million a year it costs per soldier is higher than the $390,000 congressional researchers estimated in 2006.
Military analysts said the increase reflects a surge in costs for mine-resistant troop carriers and surveillance equipment that would apply to troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But some costs are unique to Afghanistan, where it can cost as much as $400 a gallon to deliver fuel to the troops through mountainous terrain."
I'm a moderate on all things, so this post isn't anti-war. I just thought the loaded FTE number for a soldier in Afghanistan was interesting compared to what we're used to as HR Pros.
For all of you with loved ones serving our country this holiday season, thanks for the sacrifice.