This is the reality.
NRE employees are not being targeted because they are lazy, noncompliant, or underperforming. That narrative is convenient, but it is not the truth.
They are being targeted because they are the most financially strategic group to remove.
Employees who are already retirement eligible have already earned their pension and benefits. If they leave, the company still carries those costs, including payouts, healthcare, and everything that comes with it. The liability is already locked in.
Younger employees? Many of them will be impacted anyway as AI and automation continue to evolve. They have not accumulated significant pension value yet, so the financial upside of removing them now is limited. They walk away with relatively small payouts, which would likely happen in the near future regardless.
But NRE employees are right at the threshold.
They are the ones about to qualify for meaningful pension payouts and lifetime medical benefits. That is where the financial exposure is. That is where the delta is. That is why they are being pushed out before they cross that line.
Not because they are all poor performers. Not because they are disengaged. Some are, some are not, but that is true of every group.
So let’s stop pretending this is about laziness or attitude. It is not.
It is timing. It is cost. It is strategy.
What is frustrating is not just the outcome, it is the narrative being used to justify it. Do not label people as lazy to explain decisions that are clearly driven by financial incentives.
People see what is happening.
15 replies (most recent on top)
@a6 If its not about money than PIP the young ones. I've been here over 25 years, and when I started long ago there were a lot of NREs REs doing nothing. They would take naps in their office at lunch and they had no real job respinsibilities other than advising and attending meetings. But what is happening now is not the same. We’ve got a group of newer employees who are the ones coasting from the onset, sitting around, waiting to be hand-fed, doing only what’s asked and nothing more. It’s not just about output, it’s the attitude. There’s a lack of initiative, a lack of accountability, and a consistent pattern of deflecting responsibility. If something doesn’t get done, it’s always someone else’s fault, or ‘no one told me.’ At the same time, many of us with experience are still carrying the workload. We can’t step back even if we wanted to because things would fall apart. That’s the reality. My view is simple: keep the NREs and REs who are still contributing. We’ll help keep things running and support whatever transition comes next, whether that’s AI, robotics, quantum or something else. But if accountability and performance actually matter than start addressing the individuals who consistently avoid ownership. There are plenty of strong young employees, no question. But there are many simply not pulling their weight. Identify them and hold them accountable fairly and directly. If they resign so be it. They are the easiest to replace because they are only doing scripted minimal work.
@k1 cutting executives? Don’t get our hopes up. Probably just means they are ready to start shifting those jobs to BTC as well. Goodbye HC10 promotions.
Many years ago when Lee Raymond was cutting workforce, we used to joke that the goal is for XOM to have 7 employees. 1) 1-CEO, 2) 1-CEO admin, 3) 1- HR to execute Lee's RSUs and benefits, 4) 2 pilots, 5) 2 - drivers-guards
@kw our manager (l4 level) is 28, his manager (l3) is 30. My previous manager (l4) was 27.
@k1 what cl is a typical fist line supervisor, vs. a manager (l3, l2, l1).
@k1 - say more about exec ranking changes, please. Hard to infer those changes from the email that went out.
Plus...IT is a signal to NRE that you cannot coast. YOU MUST CONTINUE TO PERFORM in order to capture the Value of being a RETIREE. This was overdue, too many are coasting. PLUS it is a signal to the low performing EXECUTIVES. That is where the big cost savings ill occur. This change enables massive reductions in the executive ranks. FINALLY, EVEN YOUNG EXECUTIVES (40 to 55) WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE and the bottom 10% cut every year, forever.
No way to have a permanent HALO, CL30+ must perform and be ranked in top m80% of the executive rank group. THIS IS ABOUT CUTTING EXECUTIVES
@b7, whose giving away free money with the 5% pension bump for each year from 55 to 60? Do the math. The 5% isn’t free money. It’s just compensating you for the pension you earned but chose to forgo by delaying your retirement.
Its done so that they can accelerate the transition to India without having to pay redundancy. Slow bleed over 5 years is exactly what they need so India has time to pick it up/hire.
The issue with NRE is not just high cost (relative to performance and relative to other contributors in India), but the even higher cost of allowing them to reach annuitant status (long term health benefits and 5% more lump sum each year between 55 and 60)...only the really valuable NRE with special skills ones should be kept, if less experienced at lower pay (or india) can do the work. without major sc--wups. PS this also applies to CL 30+ managers, time for them to go...
High cost employees like Darren Woods?
There are plenty of worthless jobs out there that could easily be eliminated.
We now have a socioeconomic advisor in my part of the country.
Typical with XOM that we are taking a shotg-n approach to this instead of eliminating what is not needed.
Seems like most people here don’t like capitalism. Or at least when it bites them.
@a6 the strategy, or goal, as stated many time in the last several years, is to reduce “structural costs”. Eliminating high cost employees is just one of the many levers senior management is deploying to achieve the stated goal.
The enshitification of employee benefits is another example.
I thought it was extreme when EM set world record for annual profit and was resorting to HotDesking to abandon owned buildings and PIPing people to transition to India. Neither strategy really moving the needle for record breaking profits.
Are we going financially insolvent as a company?
Are such cost cutting steps necessary?
So our strategy is to rid ourselves of our most experienced personnel and ki-l morale amongst those that are staying.
Seems like someone XOM would do.
“ ExxonMobil (XOM) reported net income attributable to ExxonMobil (U.S. GAAP) of $28.844 billion for the full year 2025. ”