Thread regarding State Farm Insurance layoffs

Gas up your cars!

It's official we will returning to the office 50% of the time starting January 01, 2026.

by
| 3493 views | | 22 replies (last August 12) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1k1tsxr53

22 replies (most recent on top)

@bx theyll make it mandatory and then make you responsible for scheduling your desk thru some bullsh-t software. Then when you frustrated and don't come in regularly, they let you go.

Seems like theyre making a system that works against good employees. The older ones will see their way to the exit and no buyout needed.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1dy+1k1tsxr53

@gr Another stupid employee who doesn’t have the first clue but presumes to lecture agents about their job.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @k8+1k1tsxr53

Another stupid agent that doesn't understand it's easy to write a bunch of policies when you artificially lower rates, take $27 billion dollars (loss) and go out and buy horrible business! Loss ratios are over 75%. 10-15 years ago that would get an agent put in the high priority group in underwriting and SF took away their binding authority. Now we run over 75% on a regular basis as a company, so technically all agents shouldn't be able to bind any coverage. We have only grown 450K polices all this year and Progressive has written over 7 million. We lost our number one position! Progressive will only continue to stretch out that lead because their expense ratio is about 15% lower then ours and we can not compete on price unless we run a scam, slash staffing and soon to be cut more benfits.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gr+1k1tsxr53

@by And yet, we continued to grow and maintain the #1 position for another quarter of a century. Progressive won't do that.
Big Dog was an error. But State Farm wasn't stupid about data. They were running the "scoring" figures on the side and switched pretty quickly when the data indicated it was needed. As soon as that happened, SF solidified its position.
And those "useless" agents were challenged to sell more policies. They sold so many more than requested that production had to be severely curtailed to avoid running up against reserve requirement issues. All the production bonuses were shut down in April one year, since the maximum expected bonus payouts had already been exceeded. Agents actually got punished for doing what they were asked to do much much better than anybody expected. That's the point where agency started to really distrust management, and most agents gave up on chasing bonuses.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @g6+1k1tsxr53

@bx sure there is.

If they can take cubes down and turn the lights off, they can put cubes back and turn the lights on too.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @f9+1k1tsxr53

I never got an email about this or any hunt of proof, so any talk of changes to current hybrid schedule are rumor or very loose speculation and should be treated as such.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ex+1k1tsxr53

@ar

Is leadership going back to how things were run back in the 1990s too, or is it solely the employee base forced to regress?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ec+1k1tsxr53

Actually 2023 is just like the 90s, we didn't understand price to risk and our competitors were out growing us by huge margins just like today and gaining market share. Our Agency model was useless and we lagged behind in technology, just like today. We were closing offices and running off tenured employees just like today.... Actually I can't think of one single thing that is different!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @by+1k1tsxr53

There is not enough office floor space left to go into in Bloomington

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bx+1k1tsxr53

Wow! The children have to brush their teeth, comb their hair, use deodorant, shine their shoes, and dress appropriately. Also, learn to show up on time.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bs+1k1tsxr53

@b8 bad PR? Policyholders want to hear that management is cutting costs.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bj+1k1tsxr53

Excellent! Can't wait to drive by and see their a$$es in their ity bitty cubicles! Long overdue!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bg+1k1tsxr53

@ay You must not understand that 2023 was not the 1990's.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @be+1k1tsxr53

That's what they are trying to do, have to keep salary expenses down as they do not want to do layoffs and have to pay severance and make the national news with their failures/bad PR.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b8+1k1tsxr53

Good. Going to laugh my a-s off when 80% quit. That will be good enough for them.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b7+1k1tsxr53

You must have forgotten Big Dog, Big Dog 2.0., $8 Billion dollar loss 16/17 and $27 Billion Dollar loss in 22/23 and now being the #2 Auto insurer?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ay+1k1tsxr53

@ak Yeah. We wouldn’t want to revert to doing things the way that made us truly the #1 company and envy of the industry.🙄

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ar+1k1tsxr53

How do you know? Going to interview aggressively then. Not worth it for me.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @an+1k1tsxr53

I think that survey also pretty much spelled that out for us too. Execs want to return to 1990s so bad and live in the past.... re-ards.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ak+1k1tsxr53

Yes I heard it too. Let me know how's that turns out for you, they are now "southern rich" with employees. AI is causing mass layoffs everywhere, with entry level jobs, as the market is getting flooded with people getting laid off and will only ramp up every month. We have plenty of people in underwriting that they will try to place. We just lost about 70 people from personal lines that moved over to claims. Our TM talked to us about posting for claims jobs. They get really brave and spiteful as they get to see the macro job numbers and forecasts for unemployment well before you ever know there is a problem. Plus they are trying to run people off in all areas right now and hoping you quit. It is corporates best weed out process with RTW mandates. People are only in the office on weeks two and three so they can double it and we have the space unfortunately!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ag+1k1tsxr53

No we won’t. We control this ship. You want to see 80% of your workforce quit then try it. 84

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @af+1k1tsxr53

You might be. I will not.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a6+1k1tsxr53

Post a reply

: