A cut on routine increase for earners 100k+ would be significant for the bank if aggressive cost cutting measures are in place.
Very ignorant is the call to eliminate routine increase for those working below that in a high inflation economy. This a drastic pay cut. The routine % range below 6% is already a pay a cut, and top performers with loyalty have been looking the other way on this for a few years now.
However, a 0% increase is a pay decrease to the tune of about 5-15% over this past year of inflation which is drastic. There should be no question about it, without mitigation from the bank for the incomes under 100k that a catastrophic decline in performance is all but inevitble.
Its okay to function off a few workhorses who will never be recognized. If they havent been revealed by now they will never be, nor can any band level uncover these gems - the social environment is too complex to figure out whos doing the work and whos doing it right. We've been around long enough to see them try.
This is why a baseline concession to mitigate inflation has to be made even for those who are written off as average or even slightly below average - becouse work quantification just isnt there and no one really knows whos doing the work. Those who do will guard their gems by any means neccessary, typically by downplaying their value (to keep them planted).
TLDR/ By refusing to provide a baseline concession in the form of an annual "merit" (inflation) pay adjustment. Pay has been decreased acrossed the board and will be felt by the backbone of the bank.