It used to be that, if cost reductions were truly necessary, the most recent hires were the first to go. That’s clearly not the case now. Instead, newer employees seem to be safe, while those who’ve been here the longest are the most at risk. How is that fair or justified?
34 replies (most recent on top)
@y1+1jjtw7dpd It seems you believe you're innocent since you're just following orders. If that helps you feel better, then go ahead and keep doing so. You've likely been in this role for a while and have come to terms with it. I understand the need for a job, but after multiple rounds of layoffs, you're now actively participating and choosing to be part of the chaos.
Last hired first fired was the way
However because of the pandemic a lot of people were over-hired and overpaid. The rifs are supposed to bring balance to the market place by keeping the cheaper labor and sliding them into those rif d senior roles at a lesser pay. I'm seeing 30% pay cuts across the board for most new jobs.
You were probably fired for being unlikeable... every comment I read i like you less. Get over yourself.
In 2024, 15.1 k us assoc left the company (by whatever means)
For Jan 2025, 830+ us assoc left the company (again by whatever means)
Does anyone know how many positions were eliminated this round (Jan 2025)? Also curious how many total were let go in 2024.
@ds+1jjtw7dpd, for context, there are 3 people between me and the CEO. It would boggle your mind how little say I have on things. Have I pushed back? Yes. Does it make a difference, no.
At the end of the day, I follow orders coming down from above me or I can quit. We are both in the same boat. Would it be more or less noble of me to resign than it would for you?
To the people leaders on this thread do you ever tell upper management enough is enough? Do you ever push back or do you just continue to do their dirty work and destroy peoples livelihood without warning or regard?
Despite having amazing reviews and my manager constantly telling me saying how good im doing I was rifd so can someone please explain why I was let go??? Because I definitely wasnt a low performer.
Eliminate outsourcing H1B, companies will start care about people again.
Why are the “people leaders” on this thread calling the people they don’t like “low performers”. Just say it like it is. You keep the people you like and rif the ones you don’t. Why are they low performers because you don’t like them.
I wish managers would quit saying they don't pick who gets RIF'd or pretending they have no say so whatsoever. The least you could do is be honest about the process and save yourself some dignity.
And remember, the rifs have to not target specific groups of people. I.E. not too many older people, not too many women, not too many POC. When you are riffed they give a list of the demographics so that they can prove it.
Thanks for telling us all how it works. I’m sure eventually you have to choose someone who you don’t deem expendable after this many rounds of riffs. What do you do to choose then ?
We could do without some managers and directors. I’d like to managers have more than 7 direct reports. He-l mine blows off all my one on ones and tells me to just swipe my badge and leave for hybrid requirement. It’s obvious he’s not doing anything except spending the day on his boat.
To back up the person saying that it’s not about how much you make, I have also found that to be true. If it was about how much you make or how long you worked for the company, then HR would just decide who gets let go.
Your direct manager decides 99% of the time who gets let go, barring the whole team being let go. Right or wrong the manager can pick whoever they want and they pick whoever comes to mind first that they can do without. This may seem unfair and it is but the manager chooses either A)Low performers or B) associates they dont like or feel they could do without.
For the people saying “why dont they just fire the low performers” the PIP and eventually term process is very long and requires a lot of documentation. The “include them in a RIF” is much shorter and in the manager’s eyes, ki-ls 2 birds with one stone.
@bn+1jjtw7dpd - The enterprise transformation team is looking to recruit associates who can dedicate up to 25% of their workday to "transformation" activities. Who has that much free time in their job these days?
Many times they are just targeting the higher salaries. They do not care about loss of knowledge, loyalty or experience.
The reactions are priceless. The amount of non-people leaders here who think they understand the process more than the people leaders who are telling them how it works.
When I say low performer, that could also mean your boss can straight up not like you and that’s the reason you were chosen for a RiF.
Unless the whole team is going, you are chosen because your boss deemed you expendable. Bottom line. Keep thinking it’s because you made too much or you worked there too long. I personally have never seen that looked at.
It was FIFO now its FeeFiFoFum.
If I manage a soccer team carrying 4 goalies and I need to reduce, I'm going to let one of the goalies go to make sure the team can still function after the reduction. Salary and length of service won't matter.
The issue with what they are doing now is that they are directing us to cut so significantly that our goalie now also needs to play winger.
Things are going to break. I venture to say they calculated the contract compliance penalties and decided it's more financially beneficial to get rid of people and pay penalties.
If you were let go don't assume it was anything you did.
If you weren't let go, don't ki-l yourself covering for terrible senior leadership.
I don't think anyone is saying "low performer" in the way meaning they are actually "low". It is just clearly it not first in first out and in my experience it has never been. Agreed "lower" is completely subjective!
If its low performers why weren't these ppl let go the traditional way? Why wait for a RIF to get rid of them if they're that bad? I think the low performer thing is BS. In most cases it has nothing to do with performance. They want ppl out and you just better hope it's not you.
All those saying it's low performers remember that when your number is called.
Longevity means absolutely nothing. Sometimes the folks that have been there the longest are the most complacent. Or, don't really have any industry knowledge because they've been stagnant in one role. Very weird OP
I know for a fact that two of the RIFs that occurred in our shop, Carelone tech were targets rifs due to the sVP not liking these individuals. They were truly targeted during the round. While a comparison exercise might have been produced for HR reasons, the facts were misrepresented in order to “get rid” (exact words) of these two individuals.
Those dollars are not going to be saved, the leader is planning on repurposing these dollars to new positions with a different title. So no savings here
Yep. You high performers keep stressing out and putting in those extra hours. Joe’s that working for you? Your reward is cr-ppy raise and even cr-ppier AIP.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/silicon-valley-has-an-age-problem-2017-09-26
What I find funny with people who think only lower performers get riffed is eventually they get riffed too!
I was riffed when I’d gotten a 3 on review while I find out later people who got 2 on review kept their jobs. I know I was at the higher end of the pay scale and wasn’t a visa worker where many in my department were. I suspect my pay had a lot to go with it. I agree “ lower performers” is based on subjective opinion which probably means who stroked your ego the most. Btw mangers and directors at Elevance aren’t that great either.
I do think they go for lower performers. I am rarely surprised at who is chosen. I will say these cuts are deep and we are now understaffed.
@b4+1jjtw7dpd “Lower Performer” is code for “how much your manager or director likes you”.
I’ve seen people land on the RIF list because they submitted an ARRT complaint about a diagonal line supervisor.
Sadly, this is the way of the world now. Those of you who are 20+ year vets have been living in a rare throwback to a different era. And as others have said, it’s now about companies hitting that financial target, however they can. Loyalty is gone. We’re all glorified contractors nowadays, trying to stay one step ahead of staff reductions.
For what it’s worth, I’m a Director and myself and my Managers have never looked at salary or years of service when determining who to RiF. I’m sure it varies between areas. but for my area, it has always been lower performers.
It is hit a financial target by any means necessary. Higher salaries that come with older and more tenured workers will often be the first to be evaluated. Newly hired that came in high are part of that mix too. Younger, cheaper, controllable remain. It is not unique. It is not evil specific to our company. Look up and around, it is the way of business. Gone are the days where we understand loyalty, give dignity, and get respect in return. Hang on it’s been bumpy but will continue for the near future.
It's not fair, justified, or smart, since those who've been there the longest have the most knowledge and the company would function better if it didn't lose that experienced knowledge. But those who have been there the longest generally make the most money in the group.