If the goal was to get rid of some of the best people, than this layoff is a huge success. What in the world did they use as a criteria for determining who to let go? And why are people who've been here for a year, two at the most still here when some of the company veterans with the most experience have been shown the door?
6 replies (most recent on top)
It’s all money. Younger employees cost less. I was laid off 12 years ago. I was 43 everyone I knew that was laid off was my age or older and all of us were in the top 20% of sales. They sprinkled in a few young people so you can’t get them for age discrimination.
@1eft+18dXSeis Exactly. I wish more people would understand this.
Newer hires are cheaper hires. Those with many years under the belt unfortunately cost more in salary, time-off, benefits, bonuses, etc.
New employees aren’t jaded yet
Let's be real here. When did AstraZeneca layoffs ever made any sense?
New employees being retained while the rest of us are shown the door is no coincidence.