Have you, or anyone you know, experienced age discrimination at RA? What were the circumstances? i.e. passed over for promotion, pressured to retire, no response to job applications....
16 replies (most recent on top)
@4m1 I get the impression VP Bob Buttermore has a policy that does not allow anyone to say anything negative in his presence or else. Bobby reminds me of thee character in the movie Animal House saying 'all is well' while surrounded by chaos.
@4j0 totally agree. I'm scared sh!tless of the survey. I don't think it's anonymous at all, I believe they use it as a tool to weed out those that "aren't happy". It's easier to not change than to keep around the squeaky wheels. Anyone who thinks they don't want to hear anything except "great job sr mgmt" you are naive and sorely mistaken. They don't want to hear the truth. Ever.
@fb The wrinkle at RA is that they "request" employees answer a yearly survey that is "optional"; employees try to answer truthfully, and the more experienced employees try to act as translators between the workers and management. Questions then arise why the same issues are called out every year, and the messengers get the blame. I think the younger employees still have hope while the experienced employees get less hopeful. And RA management is wondering why the RA experience is leaving.
@1mc hope not Matt
Thanks for commenting, but please stay on topic.
@1n4 no disrespect, but you are probably a first line manager or individual contributor. your connection to HQ is from an email. but go ahead, place a bet. Ill give you 100 to 1 that it is one of those 3.
"Underway". Post proof.
New boss choice underway. Bob,Tessa or Matt. All are better than Blake. That is not saying much. Lots of cleanup. Probably never be the company they could have been.
all employees are just a commodity. Never an asset. Older ones cost more so it makes sense to dump them if they can. All the talk about culture is a for fools. Buy in if it makes you feel good. Dont be shocked when you get the mass firing email.
@rx you just answered your own question.
@ew it feels like the that the company sees the older and experienced employees (25+ years of experience) as liability and not the asset. Are the older folks percieved as negative, too expensive, slow to adopt to new ways, too stuck in legacy, take on the sick leaves, too expensive to get rid off, too smart to be managed out, etc etc.?
@ew that is about right! Highest overall cost to keep the employee vs. Current value of employee vs. future potential (value) of an employee. Yet again this all is not spefic to RA; this happens all iver
They do but it is in a very hard to prove manner.. if you are a long time employee at the ceiling of your pay scale and a member of the pension program you are always on the first list of reduction in force recommendations.. there was some mention that the list doesn't contain names but rather salary (plus pension availability) and title. Obviously if you are pension eligible you are already a 20+ year employee.. which management can care less about.
Yea. Over 50 and you can be on your way.
@aj well the push is to remove the “old style” pension employees first
Rumor was that when round after round of layoffs were going around, managers were given a list of employees with a pension and told to consider them first. Genearlly those would be older employees considering how long ago they closed of adding new employees to the pension plan. I did have a very high up manager confirm this was the case for at least one of the rounds.