Layoffs did occur at end of last month with jobs lost to India. Sad reality is that people had to train their replacements ....
27 replies (most recent on top)
"Got told today that my job is done. There are layoffs!!!"
Well, just to be pedantic, but there are layoffs, and then there are "layoffs". The normal ebb and flow of the workforce is an ongoing reality. Large scale simultaneous events are different. Not sure where you fall.
9 folks are losing their positions so they can be out sourced. Pretty sure that’s not ebb and flow. Couple folks were there a long time !!
"Got told today that my job is done. There are layoffs!!!"
Well, just to be pedantic, but there are layoffs, and then there are "layoffs". The normal ebb and flow of the workforce is an ongoing reality. Large scale simultaneous events are different. Not sure where you fall.
Will be mighty disappointed if there are layoffs within a year of all the work reduction efforts last year, which, unless I missed it, weren't acknowledged in the latest financial report for 2020.
Got told today that my job is done. There are layoffs!!!
I don’t trust Houston HR. They are racist towards white folks! Obviously I’m white but I’m not a racist. I have my reasons.... Be careful when your a manager and you have other ethnic races work for you and they pull the race card! HR will always side with them...
To the person who suggested that having older employees in HR would solve the problem...
Your naïveté is sweet. But HR doesn’t call any shots that impact the bottom line. And laying off older employees impacts the bottom line.
It makes actuarial sense to lay off older employees, unless they are needed for “symbolic” reasons (the so-called leaders) or are relatively inexpensive to hang on to. All companies in this industry do it.
Ageism is absolutely alive and well at Enbridge. You don’t need access to the criteria that determine who gets let go to know that. All you need are eyes and a brain.
Enbridge’s MO is largely to hire young-ish people to do the majority of the heavy lifting, burn them out, and then lay them off before they start having health problems and deserving expensive pensions.
Sure, a few older people, will be kept and allowed to retire with a full pension, mostly at the higher and lower levels (such as admin assistants, who are cheaper to let retire).
Go ahead. Tell me I’m wrong.
Put older employees in HR. Problem solved.
Age discrimination is alive and well in the workplace. I was told those exact words by the Enbridge HR consultant that was present when I got laid off. Enbridge execs talks the talk but don't walk the walk when it comes to ethics.
With respect to the age, the following is from a job posting (note the age reference):
Diversity and inclusion are important to us. Enbridge is an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Employer. We are committed to providing employment opportunities to all qualified individuals, without regard to age, race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion, s-x, s-xual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, veteran status, Indigenous/Native American status, or disability.
If age is a criteria used to determine layoffs, the company is being hypocritical and thus increase the risk of litigation.
BTW, anyone over age 50 should get a larger severance as age, location, position and chances of finding equal employment are all factors that must be considered.
What makes infastructure planning so special they get bigger raises and RSUs? I call foul, that is not fair as there are my groups who contribute to Enbridge success not just one, and talent is present everywhere. The board and Al needs to recognize the skillset in all groups not just IP and to be fair in rewarding performance.
Could Enbridge be sued for ageism? If, say, an HR employee revealed the criteria used to determine who gets laid off, could that information form the basis of a winning law suit? Or are corporations allowed to blatantly discriminate based on age? I’ll have to do some research as this topic is disturbing.
Age is important, but not necessarily tied to skills or knowledge. For example the Infrastructure Planning group is a younger group relatively speaking yet full to the brim with unmatched knowledge and skills that grace the top of Enbridge's talent pool. As long as that group is kept happy with large raises, exceptional performance ratings and RSUs then there is nothing to worry about in terms of critical knowledge departing the Enbridge knowledge base.
Age is just one of the criteria used to determine who should go. Other criteria include company need for a particular skill set, education, performance rating and willingness to remain at the level deemed to be appropriate and not rock the boat. The age criterion carries a disproportionate amount of weight in the decision, however, because it is so heavily correlated with an employee’s cost to the company (pension, increased cost of health benefits, etc.).
Just keep “Purging”! Each time, knowledge is purged along with age. Justify it with spreadsheets if it makes you feel better about it, but you already have a workforce that has not received a full transfer of asset or operational knowledge.
Remember...Those whom do not learn from history, are destined to repeat it. Knowledge not shared, is knowledge lost! And an education costs money. This company has a long history of tripping over Dollars to pick up Dimes! There is a much greater cost to consider here than just an employment package. How many mistakes need to be made by a younger workforce, to learn that knowledge that was learned the hard way by the older workforce.
Call the older percentage of your workforce; tired, deadwood, or whatever other terms you use to make it OK to get rid of us, but know that with every purge, you set yourselves up for another catastrophic event!
Fear mongering......
As noted it’s probably time to purge the older employees to keep costs under control. Quotas have been set and must be met.
I work in the Houston office, I’ve been hearing things..... lots of closed door meetings lately with the upper management.
The company favours younger employees because they are cheaper. The common practice is to lay off a certain percentage of them after they turn 50.
March 3rd
It makes perfect sense that the layoff target for employees over 50 years of age is between 60% and 70%. Therefore between 40% and 30% of employees over age 50 will be allowed to retire with a full pension, which is pretty good these days. The rest will be laid off prematurely. This practice will go on for as long as the consultants determine that this percentage range is affordable.
It's coming from experience pal.
What a bunch a s—t stirring BS. Where’s this chatter coming from specifically?
I don't think they have a, strategy when laying people off. Except to lay off the talented hard working value adders and keep the lazy slacker airheads.
What percentage of employees over 50 is Enbridge forecasting to allow to retire with a full pension?
From what I can tell, the company finds a way to lay off a good percentage of over 50s because giving them a layoff package is cheaper than giving them a full pension.
My best guess is that they will lay off 70 percent of over 50s at the point at which they are cheapest for the company to get rid of.
Keep a few over 50s so you have a bit of leadership and experience, but axe the rest. Makes good sense from a financial perspective.