SF needs to change the retirement to the rule of 80 or 90 - age plus years of service = full retirement and get those older employees off the books. We have a ton of employees that wfh that lack 5 to 10 years and they will hang on for the retirement. If they changed this they probably wouldn't need the exit package.
17 replies (most recent on top)
@y7 They just hosed retired agents who have already fulfilled every obligation they had to State Farm. So don’t hold your breath.
With the dwindling pool of current retires and future retires that will draw from the pension that is funded way above the necessary amount, you would think they would want to get all of the tenured retirement age employees off the books sooner rather than later. Instead, the pension plan penalizes you for leaving before 62, in fact the penalty is 10% of your pension for leaving at 61 instead of 62. A simple change and you would get a boatload of people pushing the button to leave now instead of holding on and praying your mental and physical health does not fail.
Definitely a more cost effective way to exit high salaried/high tenured employees. Why wouldnt they adjust?
You all fall for the one guy who camps this website and spams rage bait threads and posts. This guys been here for a LONG time doing it so im not sure if its some deranged ex-employee or a bot the website runs to increase engagement. Always talking about WFH with a clear ignorance to how WFH works at the company, same with the pension talk, and odd politics. All the same person or bot. Just ignore it, you can tell by looking at all the downvote farming posts and threads.
Eliminate the pension NOW!!! Pay our Pennie’s in the Dollar and dump that waste
There may be no I in team but there’s three you’s in STFU.
One of these days executive will finally understand their money can't buy a steak. There is more of us than them. I honestly don't know how they can sleep at night.
The only 80/90 rule this company believes in is how far they can shove it up your #$&@* 80-90%! They really aren’t even hiding it anymore….
I'd sure like to be able to go ahead and retire from this s___ show.
It would be a win win for both company and employees. Age 55 with 35 years of service =85 full retirement benefits or 57 + 33 = 90. Just as an example.
@a2 You have no clue about WFH. I have been doing this a long time, and we are watched way more closely WFH then we ever were in an office. Combine that always watching, with a huge workload and crazy goals from management, and you got a job that is much more excruciating than anything I ever had in an office.
@OP What do you mean by 80/90 rule? It is not age but years of service is what I thought.
can you explain how it works?
It would be nice not to have to work to 62 to get full retirement, in pj's or not, is the point.
@aa But there is in Win, and without WFH claims....you lose.
Back in the office. No I in team.
Um, who cares if someone works in their PJs from home? Are they getting the job done and getting it done well? That's the proof in the pudding. I'm 17.5 years away from retirement and I'm a WFH employee. I'm still busting my tail every day and am considered a high performer in my segment/team. I don't need to work in person in a corporate office to do the work. That line of thinking is BS.
Or full retirement after 35 years. Those employees are always the topped out salary employees. Gets them off the salary expense. Instead they'll hang around making the most money and doing less and less in some cases. Especially wfh. Why wouldn't they stay wfh in their pj's.