It would be better to layoff people who don’t want to be there. The people who are cheering for layoff because they don’t like being there. These are people they should pick for layoffs. They are going to leave anyway. They are not motivated. Have low morale because they don’t like the changes. The people remote also qualify for layoff. People who have average of 2days or less RTO should also be qualified for a layoff. People who have been at walgreens for years and have a high salary should also qualify for layoff. People close to retirement should also qualify for a layoff. Managers that don’t manage and don’t contribute should also qualify for layoffs. Overall, I think we may have 1500 people like that. Then what you have left is people who wanted to stay and like to work.
17 replies (most recent on top)
@OP I'm raising my hand here! I'll go! I really do love my job but don't love that I'm underpaid (by a lot!). I am tired of the rumors and the stress that comes along with Walgreen's impending layoffs around every corner. Just rip off the band aid and give me my severance! However, as much as I want to leave, I can't because the job market su-ks! I will miss my team but I won't miss Walgreen's unsteady ground.
@OP Welp, it’s not like they’re asking for volunteers to be laid off, or offering an early retirement. Believe me, I would if I could.
I hate seeing people getting laid off period, however its not impossible but its a very frustrating procedure to actually document someone especially regarding time and attendance. I feel if that was a little more streamlined we would be able to coach and counsel those who want to be apart of the time and be easier to seperate the ones who constantly call out and will not follow procedures. I am very disappointed with the whole "er" process. That's my rant it is what it is
@d5 Aren't the employees that live paycheck-to-paycheck the ones that do the actual work at Walgreens? I wouldn't be too quick to throw them under the bus. EVERYONE is expendable. Often, it's the overpaid that go first.
@d5 Shows your arrogance when you referring low pay check people as paycheck to paycheck
@d5 It is about cost reduction so you are on the radar. You can try all you want here but they have their mind made up to reduce high paycheck people like you. They will provide severance. But you are not paycheck to paycheck so you don’t need a severance.
The comments are hilarious. You can tell who is living paycheck to paycheck just by their vibe. They don’t want to work for Walgreens, they just need a job and will leave as soon as they can. So why save them? Is that really the type of person you want representing your company and helping make financial decisions when they can’t manage their own personal finances? Rather than hate on people who have managed a long career and know more than you or may set-up for financial success, maybe learn from them.
@ak You say not everyone hates working there...now why would that be.. They are crooks, got fined nonstop, unethical, treat employees like........ gone from $100 billion company to under $9 billion company, sold off to a group of scavengers, rumors everyday nonstop, and that is just the start. What an environment to work in....how would you like to be starting in a company like this for a future? What I just listed are the facts, say it the way it is. If you desire to work in that environment...and still many do. GOOD LUCK.
@ab I think everyone is not alike. Not everyone hates working there. So It is better to let people who hate it there get a layoff with a package that they have been waiting for. Also makes sense for Retirees as they get bunch of cash prior to retiring and unemployment.
@aa For my part, I'm ready to retire anyway. To your point, why would anyone with options and years ahead of them want to stay with Walgreens?
Why would you want to stay at walgreens. Is that the best you can get, obviously. Stay with a company that is about to drown, that is your choice. Says alot about you. What a way to live, just saying/
@a4 Totally agree. If they lay anyone off, they should be well taken care of. Provide them severance, insurance and enough notice.
They should look at outlook and teams data, someone who is attending lot of meetings and being fly on the wall. This type of people don’t contribute anything to discussions. They are just present there. They don’t share anything with their teams or use any knowledge discussed. They just look busy and not do much.
I see a poorly run company circling the drain. I'm a decent performer in Centralized Sevices and find the work mostly uninteresting and useless. I'd welcome a layoff with a decent severence but very doubtful that will happen. In our world, Walgreens looks for ways to fire people without paying severence.
@a2 I agree, hiding behind word institutional knowledge is not going to work with this guys.
@a1 I think their goal is to cut costs. Institutional processes that are not working needs to change anyway. They are not indispensable if that is what you are trying to say.
While I agree there are a number of people who may want a package and they should be granted as such… I don’t get the blanket statement that someone who has many years there and a high salary should be laid off. What you’re left with is a gap in institutional knowledge. The Valentine’s Day layoffs of 2020 left us with a shortage of managers who knew how to manage because the good ones who had the institutional knowledge were let go. And now when someone asks about efforts from that period of time, no one knows anything. There is no set formula that makes sense.