Post ID: @ne+1jj2z27s8
It incentivizes the current workforce to leave. Which benefits the company more. They can always find more bodies if they lose too many in a certain department.
You act as if Ally are outliers in this practice.
The 401k structure is DESIGNED to force employees to stay if they want to vest company contributions. It also helps companies save even more money by refunding those "employer match" amounts that aren't vested when employees are let go before they're vested.
Read the Separation FAQ documents. DAMN THEY SC--WED ME MORE THAN I THOUGHT
Post ID: @kp+1jj2z27s8
Yes obviously financially they benefit in the short term, but long term it incentivizes the current work force to not give a sh*t. Morale is cratering across the company, everyone feels overworked and like their job has no security.
Can a company that is already underperforming afford to lose all its best workers and also let their already shaky products get worse?
It just shows the incompetence of leadership. Ally should have been uniquely positioned to take on the internet/mobile era in banking and they fumbled so hard that they missed the boat.
Our main competitors are large enough to dominate traditional banking and because Ally operated with no vision, smaller banks and startups are now entrenched in the niche we could have easily filled.
Now they want to cut back at a time where they could still make some headway as smaller companies feel the economic pressure more acutely. Practically guaranteeing Ally’s irrelevance long term.
Good luck to all of us at our new jobs
“It seems like bad business for them not to receive those contributions.”
Bad business for who? Those unvested amounts are basically being refunded to the company when you leave before vesting. So not letting them keep unvested 401ks is saving them money. Saving money = shareholders happy = bigger bonus for Mr. CEO. Seems like good business to me?
To everyone but the people laid off losing their vested 401ks that is. But the board won’t lose any sleep over that.
Post ID: @hd+1jj2z27s8
Come on now, Eggbert.
Just ask yourself:
Does it make financial sense for the company to let you keep the non-vested MATCH "as a gesture of good will"?
I think we all know the answer to that one...
o_O
No, I haven't read the “Separation FAQs” since I wasn't separated. I thought perhaps as a gesture of good will the separated employees would at least get their 401k contributions.
It seems like bad business for them not to receive those contributions.
The “Separation FAQs” document addresses this. Did you read it?
I would imagine probably NOT...
That's kinda the point of the contribution becoming "vested".
Vested = it's yours.
Not Vested = it's NOT yours . o_O