Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

too many advisor roles need to be cut

OP here. In reply to some comments below:

Yes, I’m obviously talking percentages at each level, or group of levels (like 28+, 26/27). I think it’s clear from my post. I use % in there!

And why the comment about natural retirements? Because the 28+ crowd that leave the company during these re-orgs always seem to have graceful exits, either through obvious age-related retirement and / or temporary positions, like “Senior Advisor” positions that last for up to a year. I don’t see “real”, hard-to-say-goodbye cuts at these levels like I do at the 25 and below levels. It’s not mean spirited, it’s just pointing out the disparity between the top and bottom of the company.

@b1 they did… all of the business unit exploration teams got consolidated. A ton of exploration managers (not yet of retirement age) got left standing. The announcements were pretty bad. Whether they were actually good or not, there were many notable names missing in that 26-27 round.

Let’s hope with the increase in exploration budget, the technical contributors aren’t cut as deeply this round because I’m not sure who’s actually going to do the work if the 25 and below are cut as deeply as that management layer.

@ak Did LS really cut that deeply in exploration, if they’re planning to increase the budget? Did they bring in any new leadership personnel, or was it deck chairs / titanic?

@a7 I don’t agree with OP..but come on guy.. percentages!

58 still has almost a decade left of solid work years

It was just locker room talk , didn’t mean anything

The 26 and 27s got annihilated in exploration, like more than 30-40%

No your still whining still complaining. I see no difference.

Why exclude the retirements if they are not being backfilled?? Do you have a vendetta or are you willing to use logic here? Also, remember to use %’s not quantities. Many more folks at lower psgs, so logical those are higher count.

19s got DESTROYED