Does anyone know, or has anyone heard, if the recent layoffs mainly involve employees over 40 and / or 50?
16 replies (most recent on top)
@233 HO has in effect already started "reducing" because I believe now, that FAs cannot have a BOA until they are a level 5.
@21x Sr BOA here (or CSTM)...whatever we are called now, yes - I was told this Rule of 70 applies to me when I was recently, eh hem, my position recently "eliminated." I miss it by 3 years.
1+ for Jones / 0 for me.
@21x You can go back through the threads here and see a bunch of FA's cheerleading the company throughout Enterprise Reimagined. Not sure if they thought they would actually see any of the increased profits, or if they thought gutting departments and sending jobs to India would actually benefit them in some way. Regardless, the other shoe is about to drop on the branches. I could see how some of us in the home office would gloat about what's coming for the FA's and their offices. One might even think it's hilarious that most of them don't even see what's coming. I won't gloat about it, but I could see how someone would.
@21x Yep, we are. I'm being laid off b/c there is supposedly no room at the newly merged one-book FA office. Total BS. Totally political too. I guess being the only one with an MBA was too much for the uneducated at the office to tolerate. Can't have that...it's a (imagined) threat. The high producing FA, loyal to his uneducated BOA, calls the shots. My lower producing FA didn't want to "ruin his chances" (yes, he actually said that to me) so he said nothing for fear of upsetting the higher producing FA . Guess he has his knee pads out, for sure. Pardon my sarcasm, however I was told for months I would be going with him to the office. Started studying for my Series 7 and then out of the blue I got THE CALL. No warning, no heads up...nothing. and I was the one who helped him go from level 0 to 5 in 5.5 years! Guess that meant nothing.
Recently saw a report of 70 rule for FAs and CSTs come out… seems like they are next.
Using Rule of 70 for VSPs, which factors in age, and telling people 'if you don't take this, you may not have a job in the future and you may get nothing if we ISP you' is something that I can't believe got greenlit by the legal department
In Canada, where VSP wasn't offered, the majority were older and women. There was definitely gender discrimination.
@td actually that is incorrect. If the company uses the program to pressure employees (e.g., implying layoffs will follow if they don’t take it, or targeting specific groups), then those separations might be treated as involuntary, and could count toward WARN threshold. The implication has does not have to be explicitly implied. I would argue there was implicit implication in the case of the VSP because it was implied that you could receive no severance and not receive extended insurance.
They did rule of 70 VSP to get around this. VSPs do not count towards layoffs from a federal level.
If they would have been smart they would have targeted a certain 62 year-old managing partner who is currently destroying the firm that thousands of people helped build.
Keep in mind that the older the person, good chance the higher the comp. So, on a spreadsheet, they are bigger targets.
@df , I'm very sorry to read this.
50+ veteran Sr BOA. Replaced with a 22 year old straight out of college.
@d7, yes you are correct. Age is all over the place.
VSP was tenure based in a way so would expect a higher age. Of the 30-40 ish of ISP people I knew, (which given there were mid 200 that’s fairly representative) ages are all over the place.
@OP, I haven't heard any age discrimination. All I've seen or heard is the folks that opted to do the VSP and the ones who were ISPd. Nothing to my knowledge on age..