In previous layoffs, did it usually affect the more experienced, long-tenured employees, or were the newer joiners typically the first to let go? Curious to hear what others have seen in the past.
10 replies (most recent on top)
@at Not until the severance packages are received and reviewed. Nobody will be saying much.
@ad I would have expected more posts in LinkedIn if that number was to be true
@ad that'd be an insane number if true. I don't know how they'd even get through that many people in a day.
I've been on both sides of this action with FIS, having been in one of the earlier waves after a decent career with the company. It won't surprise you to learn there is no real coordination on this, teams don't share between each other, and decisions are made within small groups. It is highly localized...just like everything else. I've seen times where a list is handed to managers in a team, and times where the managers had to pick. I'm sure a few of us still remember Barb calling a big conference call to tell people they were getting let go because remote workers were not going to be allowed anymore, a few months before COVID hit.
Layoffs are often highly dependent on the decisions of individual leadership teams. While there is no single primary driver, tenure is a factor that can be used to justify a decision.
Some managers may use long tenure as a reason to let someone go, citing a lack of adaptability to new strategies or a resistance to change ("they are not on board with FF and stuck in the old ways").
Conversely, short tenure can also be used as a reason, as newer employees may be seen as easier to let go ("we need to retain our key talent").
Ultimately, the decision often comes down to budget targets and individual team circumstances. For managers without history on a team, laying off one highly compensated, long-tenured employee can achieve the same savings as letting go several newer employees. For managers who have been part of their team for 30 years, it is about making sure the needs are covered. It is very situational.
Rumor is FIS laid off 6k today. I know of several
In my observations over the years, it seems like it's the "yes" people who survive. Exec's don't like to hear how bad an idea is and why something won't work, even when those warnings come to fruition. It's always someone else's fault and if they don't get 100% support from someone, then those people eventually end up on the RIF list.
@a7 I've always thought the opposite as the company pays out severance. This isn't about performance.
@a5 personally I feel that in situations like this tenure is not on your side. Fresher faces are better.
From the people I know you can be a strong, tenured, wise, dedicated employee or a new highly recruited upstart. Doesn't seem to matter at all. I've seen both cut this time. What is most obvious and disappointing is it definitely isn't about performance and who is good. Ive seen at least 50 people go in the last couple months, many being the best performers I've known at the company while I others who I know are paid more, do less and were easily replaceable remain. I've really struggled to pinpoint a methodology. At this point assume it's a monkey throwing darts.
Anyone really know? At this point I just think it is a Hunger Games style bowl with names in it that are drawn out.