How many people will Exxon have to hire to replace those who were let go once the time comes? Considering that so many of the best employees were laid off, it won't be that easy to find replacements on their level. My guess is they'll have to hire several people to cover what one person was doing. Which kind of defeats the whole point of layoffs in the first place, don't you think?
17 replies (most recent on top)
There’s PLENTY of toxic still left to go around
A few times!
The workload is stacking up for those left behind and it’s a swim or sink situation. I suppose this will all be part of the ranking process. What I don’t understand is how jobs are being sent to India and they are useless. They don’t respond to anything during our normal core hours so, I log in from 9-11pm to try and reach someone and that’s a waste. All their messages say, “Busy until 5:30am”. WTH do they do? It sickens me that ExxonMobil doesn’t care about the direction that the Company is going. I suppose that DW, NC and the rest of Dallas are just going to smile long enough to get their retirement package and they’re going to run fast. When they do, I hope they get the same sloppy treatment that the Benefits gives everyone.
There are waves of announcements about Geoscientists and others hiring on in India. They’re even sending Indians to expat assignments abroad... times are changing...
Why sure, I am just a stupid old hillbilly, not smart like you! For project planning, I typically assume between 2.5 and 3 workers per $1M of cost, depending on location of the project and team. Usually works out pretty close. For some portions of the company that by design (tax purposes) must charge out ALL of their costs, the hourly charges are much, much higher than the actual salaries. And it is not unusual for expat employees to rack-up travel charges of $30-50k or more annually, plus all of the housing costs.
But, this is nowhere close to the ALL IN COST that was referenced in the post. All in costs include corporate overhead, which essentially takes in all corporate expenses including real estate, benefits, support functions, incentive compensation, etc. This is what the corporation looks at as actual costs per employee, and it almost doubles the cost, thus the quoted estimate of $550k to $1M per employee. A contractor only requires about one-quarter to one-third of these corporate costs, including the costs paid to the supplier.
So, you gotta pay attention when us dumb old hillbillies talk, or you don't understand what the conversation is really about. 'Specially because some of us dumb old hillbillies have led a many a project around the world, plus worked at corporate HQ, and we kinda knows some things. But you right, your smarts and my smarts are no where close. I just got a different idea of whose smarts is the mosts.
Hopefully it is getting better over time. Just look at all the negative people and complainers on this site who were cut loose. Getting the toxic out the door right now!
Lol? Are you a troll or just ignorant? All in cost for a worker is like 1.25 to 1.4 the take home salary.
An EM Employee who takes home $180k (SR technical) would cost max ($250k to the company)
Last time I checked the wages in India were about 7 times less vs US workers for tech / oil professionals. We also know they are hiring in India for various positions.
So there you go. The answer is actually pretty simple.
Social security and Medicare matches, medical and dental coverage, pension, etc. all make employees more expensive than contractors. All in costs for employees avg between $500k to $1M annually, depending on CL. Contractors are cheaper period.
Contractor pay is not indicative of contractor cost. Those that think contractor pay is less than an employee is dead wrong. Many of the contractors we use locally (in US) are $100~200/hr ($250k+/yr if working 40 hr/wk)
All true. Many of those who were laid off in good standing will have the opportunity to come back in contract positions before full time. The 6 month waiting period to return as contractor, I believe, only applies to retirees. Don’t be fooled that contractors make substantially less than employees, I’ve know quite a few who have turned down staff jobs due to the contract pay and freedom.
I’ve made contact with two of the company’s main contract agencies. That’s a good place to start. It won’t be tomorrow, but at least have my name out there as interested.
These agencies have medical options. As far as savings, does it matter? No 7% match anymore anyhow. Feed your own IRA and have many more investing options.
There’s an outfit called Kimble Group that continually sends me great staff openings in the area, although I’m still taking some time off, they do look like interesting possibilities.
why does everyone keep saying "the best were laid off", I don't think that's true at all.
Don't expect much employee hiring anytime soon. If contractors can provide the necessary skills and experience, they will be a priority. They are much cheaper, in plentiful supply, and can be terminated with no cost or legal issues. The primary need for employee hiring in this environment is for succession planning, and there are more than enough current employees to meet those needs.
People on this site refuse to accept it, but a growing percentage of job opportunities will be outsourced and/or contractors. Times is a changing.
Wrong assumptions:
the best employees were laid off (not true)
it won't be that easy to find replacements on their level (wrong again).
My guess is they'll have to hire several people to cover what one person was doing (most definitely wrong)
I'm from IT here in Houston, I lost all my previous jobs because of outsourcing my work, seems now I gonna lose this job as well because last week decided to move my project to offshore, India
So far I’ve just seen heaping of work onto certain remainers. I know we’ll eventually start hiring again, but I do t think it’s going to be a hiring spree even in low cost locations. Higher higher ups don’t mind if workers in the trenches are past capacity.
The company isn't replacing those that were let go. Many projects fell through / were canceled meaning less work over the coming years. Less work = less headcount required to complete it.
The strategy to move work overseas is going to be a dynamic shift over a longer period of time (not something done all this year). Something that attrition should be able to handle. Many NRE are going to retire over the next few years also.
Not if those several people together cost less than the one person they let go, which is the whole reason they got offshored/outsourced. However what also ends up being the case many times is those several people still aren’t as effective as the one person they cut who had the right skills and organizational knowledge to get the job done and still “step out”.