#transparency

I still can’t figure out why some Sr Directors are saying “I know nothing at all.. I’m waiting to hear too” and then other Sr Directors (and even ADs) know the names of those affected on their team. Why is the comms plan and information leaking so different this time?

Can somebody please explain why they're being so cagy with information? What would it hurt to provide us with some clarity? What do they gain by keeping us in the dark, other than reducing productivity and further eroding morale that has already hit rock bottom?

Higher ups were supposed to get calls today.. anyone on here in the know and willing to share what’s going on?

A simple google search would tell any prospective employee to stay away… not to mention threads were people are trying to piece together what’s going on because leadership is being super shady. It screams toxic in the worst possible way.

Does someone know how the selection was made?

Who is making call and how much our direct management influenced the process?

I recently became bonus eligible (grade 11) in September (US employee).

However, I was basically told “everything is under review and typically you’d get 33% of your bonus in cash and the other 67% in stock”

Anyone know if that’s staying and when the payouts typically are? Can’t find anything on FUEL and my managers keep saying they can’t be 100% certain…

This whole process was never going to be easy, but it could’ve been so much better if leadership had been upfront from the start. Instead, we’re left to guess and speculate because no one at the top wants to say anything concrete. A little honesty and communication would make a world of difference right now.

1,000 Layoffs on 10/29
600 Buyouts
1,600 Personnel no longer on the books once Telefe and Chile TV network sold
Talk of 2,000 total Layoffs

Here's what would be great to know...just so all are aligned and working off the same page. We know that the 1,000 10/29 layoffs are part of the 2,000 layoff target. Are the 600 + 1,600 figures above considered part of the total 2,000 or are they completely separate? That's all we're asking DE + Exec Team to share. Are there 1,000 more to go in December of Q1 2026 or is the figure more or less???

Ive worked here long enough to sit thru at least 5 strategic shuffles, and I’ve never seen leadership this tight-lipped... All this while morale sinks sooo fast.

Dan keeps talking about building a leaner company and bold changes, but all we get are buzzwords and MORE SILENCE. It’s the same canned lines on earnings calls & the same trust the process nonsense in internal metings... and meanwhile we’re supposed to act like we dont see the layoffs coming a mile away.

Everyone already knows something big is happening by November 20... the rumors are everywhere, not just this site.

Yet instead of addressing it head-on we get happy emails about embracing agility and AI transformation (what the fu-k is that).

People are anxious, scared, updating resumes on company time, and pretending to care about the future vision while half the teams are quietly being gutted.

If you really believe in being a transparent leader, prove it. Stop hiding behind corporate PR.

Tell people what’s happening so they can prepare. We’re adults indeed and we can handle the truth.

What we can’t handle is another round of fake optimism from execs posting champagne selfies on linkdin while the rest of us are bracing for impact.

If this is your idea of leadership, it’s no different from the Hans era - just with better lighting + fewer vowels in your buzzwords.

Why is this new CEO- opting to be so cryptic? He has a company with highly talented employees wearing a dozen hats each. They all deserve at this point, to know what the new game plan is-
Every Verizon employee has been digging in, trying their best to keep things afloat, especially the last several years-

After every layoff- VSP/ISP talent has been lost and the work load consolidated. Yet even with all the internal struggles - we keep at it.

If Dan truly wants Verizon to succeed- he needs to be candid and up front with his employees. We can handle the hard truths- we can deal with change and limitations- but the C-suite silence is destroying the company from the top down.
Dan- be different-be frank- tell the people at Verizon what is happening and do it sooner than the Nov. 20 mark- the internal barometer is tipping negatively and once it goes too far we are looking at Sprint 2.0-
You are losing trust, confidence, and support from your workforce. We all know what is coming, but the way you are decidedly unveiling it- especially in these economic times, with all the political theatrics happening in DC, only exacerbates and compounds the situation- any other year might be fine- but this is not the current weather for it.

Come clean and do it quick- or everyone here will soon agree you’re no better than Hans……

Many years ago the company would publish the range of salaries across pay grades. I haven't seen that in forever. Does anyone have a clue where things stand now for bands 5, 6 and 7?

What if a work study is conducted and the results don’t align with the current hr/mgmt narrative or expectations? What if someone on the inside says she wasnt to use the results equitably?

How might the team ensure that all findings are accurately documented, reviewed, and communicated, regardless of whether they confirm or challenge assumptions?

Could workers establish a process for transparency and verification so that the outcomes are trusted and actionable and calibrated to perf ratings and bonuses.

It appears that top leadership has been making frequent visits to this site. While their presence may be intended to demonstrate oversight or support, it has raised concerns among employees about the underlying agenda. Many perceive this level of involvement as a form of micromanagement, which can be demoralizing for the broader team.

These visits are often conducted with significant comfort and catered hospitality, perhaps to maintain favorable impressions. However, this creates a contrast with how resource allocation is handled for employees at operational levels. When project teams need to travel overseas, cost-cutting measures are strictly enforced, with limitations on the number of travelers and budget constraints. This imbalance can lead to frustration and a sense of inequity.

To rebuild trust and morale, leadership could focus on transparency in their purpose for site visits, demonstrate genuine engagement with employees at all levels, and ensure that organizational policies reflect fairness and shared responsibility.

I want to start this conversation because something isn’t adding up in the way our company talks about risk and reward.

We’ve all heard the narrative:
“Partners take on the financial risk, while employees share in the success.”

But when you look at how our compensation and margins actually work, the picture appears to be very different.

How the Current Model Really Works
Here’s what the numbers show:
• 11-12% profit margin is built into the financial model for LP and GP payments every year. Approximately 72% of that margin goes to the GPs. See page 30 and 50 of the publicly available 10-K.

•   After covering that 12%, whatever’s left goes to the employee variable compensation pool (bonuses,and profit sharing). We have all heard during bonus time that employee bonus can not be make the profit margin fall below a certain percentage depending on the bonus level.

In formula term
Revenue - Expenses - Bonus Pool = 0.12 Profit Margin
So the bonus pool is 0.88(Revenue - Expenses)

That means when expenses increase, bonuses automatically go down, because the partners’ 12% margin stays fixed.

Let’s put that into perspective:
Scenario Revenue Expenses Partners (12%) Employee Bonus
Normal year $10M $7M $1.2M $1.8M
Expenses increase $10M $7.5M $1.2M $1.3M

Even though revenue doesn’t change, employee bonuses fall by $500K while partners’ returns stay identical.

So the idea that partners are “bearing the risk” of expense increases doesn’t appear to be accurate mathematically. Employees appear to be bearing the brunt of increased expenses with lower bonuses. Unless my math is wrong, which maybe it is, but there have been lots of discussions about decreased bonuses with record profits over the years.

Now About the New Limited Partnership Offer
At first glance, it sounds like a great opportunity.

But here’s what’s changed under the surface:
Before: Limited partnership returns were guaranteed.
Now: There’s no guaranteed return, just “potential for higher earnings.”

That means the company is shifting more financial risk from the partners to employees. If GP payouts are guaranteed first, then the LPs again are taking on the risk of increased spending by the GPs.

What We Should Be Asking
Before signing or investing, ask these questions in writing:

1.  Priority of payments:
        Who gets paid first — partners or limited partners — and in what order?
2.  12% margin protection:
        Are we maintaining 12% margin protection and do GPs still get 72% of that margin? What percent will go to LPS?
3.  Profit calculation transparency:
        How exactly is “profit” defined for distribution purposes? Are partner salaries, perks, or expenses deducted first?
4.  Historical context:
        What would limited partner returns have been under this new structure for the past five years?
5.  Liquidity and exit:
        If an employee leaves or wants to sell their stake, how is the value determined? Is there a buyback obligation, and at what price?
6.  Governance:
        Do limited partners have any say in how profits are allocated or reported?

The offer sounds good but without a guaranteed return, you’re taking on real investment risk. At the same time, if the partner allocation remains fixed, then the risk is being shifted more to LPs.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t participate, there are still many unknowns about the new offering. It does mean you should go in with eyes wide open. Transparency and informed consent are what fairness look like. If the company truly wants shared success, the financial model should reflect shared risk not just shared language. I hope I am wrong and this is a good thing because given what we have all been through this year we need a silver lining. The culture has shifted drastically and a lot of trust has been lost. Let’s make sure we are asking the right questions to ensure GPs aren’t raking in cash and spending like drunken sailor, while we get the crumbs.

The real issue isn’t whether the Vawn assets are “material” to Cenovus — it’s whether the special compensation or arrangements Strathcona received from Cenovus are material to other MEG shareholders. That’s the question investors deserve answered.

If certain insiders or counterparties benefited from discounted asset valuations or side-terms, why shouldn’t ordinary shareholders receive an equivalent uplift in share value?

The Board’s defense — that the Vawn assets represent only a small percentage of Cenovus production — completely misses the point. Materiality is judged by what matters to MEG shareholders, not by what’s convenient for Cenovus or its advisors.

The optics here are troubling. The absence of transparent disclosure around valuation assumptions, fairness opinions, and board deliberations raises serious questions about whether all shareholders were treated equally.

Worse, the MEG Board attempts to justify its decision by hiding behind the advice of its financial advisors, BMO and RBC. Outsourcing judgment is not fulfilling fiduciary duty — it’s the opposite. Shareholders rely on the Board to defend their interests, not to delegate accountability.

It’s time for the Alberta Securities Commission and the SEC to take a hard look at whether this process truly met the standards of fairness, independence, and equal treatment that public shareholders are owed.

Just wanted to follow up—still no invite on my end. Curious if anyone here has received theirs yet or heard anything through the grapevine?

Also, for those tracking layoffs.com/dell, keep an eye on the bot activity. Historically, when things start shifting, the upvote/downvote patterns tend to flatten out. Might be worth watching over the next few weeks.

Share what you know.

The Employees and Wall Street dont believe Raul F. "The debut of the Xponential AI framework adds a fresh storyline, but with not a single major analyst rating DXC a 'buy' – unlike its IT services peers – the company’s still playing catch-up.

As digital transformation gathers pace globally, DXC’s stronger cash flow and AI push could keep it in the game for the long haul – as long as it can deliver on its promises."

Someone in my dept had a planned retirement date in September that for some unknown reason was extended. We even had a retirement party for them two weeks ago.

Then on layoff day, we received a farewell email from them and they began their email with how they were “one of the ones impacted”

I don’t believe for a second that our VP didn’t know. I think they had them extend their retirement so as to have them counted in layoff and therefore save a headcount vs. lose one more additional person.

In one sense I appreciate that but in another, it means they knew names and they knew this was coming for much longer than they let on.

Finally some acknowledgment of what most employees already knew…things aren’t great and they need to change

But…where’s the acknowledgment from the other leaders as they rapidly pivot to protect their own positions

I can’t help but feel that some should be reflecting on poor performance and leaving proactively..at the very least they should be on a PIP! Maybe these discussions are ongoing but the culture has to change to one of more honesty and transparency

Top executive compensation
Frank J. Bisignano (Chairman and CEO): Total compensation of $23,774,483.
Michael P. Lyons (Chief Executive Officer): An annual base salary of $1,300,000, with the potential for increases.
Guy Chiarello (Chief Operating Officer): Total compensation of $9,104,354.
Robert W. Hau (Chief Financial Officer): Total compensation of $6,406,705.
Adam L. Rosman (Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Legal Officer): Total compensation of $4,112,760.
Other salary information
Average Executive Compensation: Approximately $238,706 per year, including base salary and bonus.
Vice President: Around $197,191 per year.
Vice President of Information Technology: Around $231,700 per year.
Director of Finance: Around $158,263 per year.

I've been lurking for years and I have noticed there are two types of RTO posters. Those who don't want to give up their cushy remote job and those who are required to RTO and are extremely resentful that others are remote or have lax managers who allow their reports to coffee-swipe or ignor the requirement altogether.  

Although I HATE losing my one flex day, if leadership finally standerizes RTO for EVERYONE to follow I will stand up and clap. 

Thoughts:

1. Truist should publish the mileage-to-hub guidelines for transparency. If its 35 miles, then it should be across the board. Is the 35 miles as the crow flies? Or mapquest?  It should NOT be manager discretion.  Also, they should state whether moving outside the mileage limit would result in a remote opportunity? 

2. Truist should publish the definition of 'critical' verses 'non-critical' for transparency and post it on job profiles. This way 'critical' teammates can apply for open 'non-critical' remote positions. These teammates should get first consideration for those open positions since many have mentioned they would take a pay-cut to remain remote. 

3. Truist allows teamates to purchase up to 12 vacation days. Maybe they can offer four ten hour days as an option to eligible teammates? 

Commuting su-ks, I'm sure we can all agree on that, but the guidelines should be applied equeally and with 100% transparency. 

And no, i'm not Bill. Just a low-level teammate who is in the same boat as everyone else.

What is the ROI on this and how does it align with our strategic planning?
At a time where we keep hearing about constant cost-cutting, endless WFRs, hiring freeze, and rumors of no raises, I think leadership owes us transparency on the motive and expected benefits. This really makes me sick to my stomach and I cannot be alone on this sentiment.

The biggest issue I am having with this layoff thing, is the absolutely lack of transparency they are giving us. What a failure on leaderships part and especially this new CEO. What a way to make your first real impact on the company — your likability factor and lack of decency is out the door already.

How hard is it for this company to at least tell people what the process is like / how things will unfold instead of making every single employee just be on edge for several days? Very cruel and clearly they are not taking their employee’s well-being seriously.

From summer 2026, new EU rules will come into force, introducing far-reaching changes in employers’ obligations regarding pay and pay transparency. The objective of Directive (EU) 2023/970 is to ensure effective equal pay for equal work and work of equal value, as well as to strengthen the transparency of recruitment and pay practices.

The upcoming rules raise a number of questions and practical challenges for employers, who should already start preparing now

For those that work at Gartner they know that if you are put on a plan for success then that means you are being quietly being shown the door. It’s impossible to complete that formal program under the current economic environment. There is a push from leadership to meet metrics, but how can anyone do that when Gartner consulting has a terrible pipeline at the moment and an even worse one going into 2026. Things will get better but they will get much worse before that. Leadership is sitting on their thrones making impossible demands of staff whilst taking no accountability and providing no support to the people who have dedicated themselves to providing exceptional client work. I wish Gartner would stop pretending that things are great and be transparent and let people know that there are more layoffs to come. So disappointed at the company. They are ruthless.

Who makes the decision on who gets cut or not? Directors? L7s and L8s?

Saw a comment about a Sr. Director say to their org that they didn’t know and was blindsided by the news. I personally don’t believe that

How they can expect anyone to accept an offer that provides little to no details about your position, your location, the costs of your benefits, the status of your pension, etc is beyond me. I wish I knew their end game, but it all seems shiesty to me. They are expecting people to accept an offer with no real start date, so many what ifs. They are incentivizing it with up to a $15,000 sign on bonus that you don't get until 6/12 months after the close of sale, which is unknown, and then clearly state that any disciplinary or code of conduct violations voids the bonus, and nobody knows what the policies of the company are. So how many would actually receive this bonus? Where is the Union in all of this? Union dues are paid to have them protect you, where is the protection here?

Why do they post positions internally and also on their public job openings page of their website, yet when you apply, you ultimately get an email response that says "We're sorry but the position you have applied for no longer exists". This message comes anywhere from the next day to a couple of weeks later, yet the position is STILL posted and able to be applied for on their public job postings page of their website. Why the lie???

It’s better to be clear and consistent

Apologies if this is another sad post, but can someone clarify how in-office attendance is actually tracked? Are we talking badge swipes, IP addresses, or just whatever the reporting AI spits out each week?

I keep landing on these “magical” lists that show I’m not here even though I’m in the office 8.5 hours a day, three days a week. Meanwhile, there are folks coffee badging or popping in for a few hours who never seem to make the cut. I’m not trying to police anybody else (what they do is not my business), but this system does not line up with reality.

We used to be able to check our own badge records, now it’s “ask your manager”. I believe my manager’s is advocating for me, but honestly, at this point I feel like I have to advocate for myself, too. If this is really about looking for reasons not to give bonuses or reasons to push people out just say that. Don’t lie on me.

Just venting, but also genuinely asking for some transparency.

I got a new role as an internal applicant Coding Analyst they switched my team that I would work on and told me about the switch 2 days before training. This other team does not sound like a Coding Analyst Role it sounds like a Medical Coder role not even clear what the work is supposed to be. Is this a normal thing at Optum with the bait and switch last minute? Anyone have any insight?

Can't wait to see what Uncle Maurice tries to hide.

in a call last week MN mentioned five deaths this year from the Angola incident (3 reported deaths) and some other incident. Does anyone know what the other incident was? I think a contractor was also ki-led in Pascagoula due to a fall.

With the number of layoffs since 2022, does anyone know how or who selects the people or areas that get hit?

Is it HR?

Earlier this year when a girl on my team was notified, our ED said she didn’t know until that morning and my director said he found out just 30 minutes prior to telling us.

Adding fuel to the fire, the Nascent Information Technology Employees Senate (NITES) has accused TCS of not being transparent about the scale of the layoffs. In a statement cited by PTI, NITES said, “This is not a minor difference. Nearly 8,000 employees, more than what TCS admitted, have disappeared from the rolls… It points to a deliberate attempt to downplay the scale of retrenchments and mislead regulators, policymakers, and the public.”

https://inshorts.com/en/amp_news/nites-accuses-tcs-of-hiding-8-000-layoffs--misleading-public-1760182365803

Wouldn’t it be great if leadership actually spelled out what to expect, including some of those “minor” details like severance terms?

Sure doesn’t seem like it.

It’s a rhetorical question, no need to answer. Leadership doesn’t see us as people, and they couldn’t care less about our families, debts, health, or the stress and uncertainty they’re putting us through. Many layoffs have gone underreported, and more are coming despite management’s attempts to convince us otherwise. What a way to treat the people who actually do the work and create the value and profits.

All of the marketing articles being posted on this site seem to be an obvious attempt to shift focus from some pretty egregious complaints.

Rather transparent.