Thread regarding Phillips 66 layoffs

You are not alone - Time to take P66 back

There are many of us—employees and former employees—who have quietly joined the effort to support Streamline 66 because we’ve felt helpless, unheard, and frustrated watching this company we care about deteriorate under an irresponsible management team.

We’ve spoken up. We’ve raised concerns. We’ve shared data, documentation, even recordings of the ELT dismissing Elliott as “pot-stirring losers” rather than taking the opportunity to reflect, listen, and act to protect jobs and shareholder value.

Instead, we’ve watched a toxic pattern persist:

• A multi-year “transformation” that has spent more than it saved.
• Leadership inflating pay while deferring real decisions to consultants.
• Layers of LPOs—Lost Profit Opportunities—because those who know the business are sidelined.
• Talent leaving or silenced. Programs distorted beyond recognition.

• A culture where executive optics matter more than operational excellence.

Phillips 66 is still a good company—but it is being run into mediocrity by people who refuse to listen.

Elliott’s proposal offers a legitimate path forward. It’s not perfect, but it acknowledges the hard truths that many of us have seen up close. It is focused on restoring discipline, accountability, and value for all stakeholders.

If you’ve seen what we’ve seen, now is the time to speak up.

• Share what you know.
• Provide examples—documents, emails, stories, metrics, timelines.
• Point to the programs that didn’t deliver and the costs that were buried.
• Show where LPOs are occurring every day because of poor execution and misaligned priorities.

We need this company to succeed—for the sake of our industry, our colleagues, our communities, and ourselves. The current leadership team has had more than enough time and chances. Now it’s our turn to demand better.

Join us. Let’s restore Phillips 66 to what it was always meant to be.

by
| 4411 views | | 22 replies (last April 2, 2025) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1jqaps8ka

22 replies (most recent on top)

Gogo bought the train. He likes wrecking trains. Pretty obvious.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @16k+1jqaps8ka

It isn’t just Elliot. Most of our largest shareholders are also waiting in the wings as well. Numbers don’t lie. For all of the benefits we’ve promised, we still have the highest cost per barrel of peers. It’s not clear what the objective is.

It’s right to be skeptical of Elliot. They have financial motives, certainly. But the portfolio doesn’t make sense anymore. You’ve got Chevron engaging their institutional investors who are some of the same as ours pushing for the value of getting CPChem.

I care about the people. That isn’t what ELT or Board is focused on. It is shareholder return. And they’ve done a subpar job while also eroding capabilities, expertise. Something has got to give.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @130+1jqaps8ka

From a manager in our Commercial org in a meeting: “Sometimes the optics and how we market the change is more important than the actual execution.”

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @v8+1jqaps8ka

Just here to say that the following points around talent and culture are valid:

• Talent leaving or silenced. Programs distorted beyond recognition.
• A culture where executive optics matter more than operational excellence.

Leadership is put on a pedestal and shielded from those on the front lines, who truly know the business or have (prior) experience with best practices/industry excellence. Why hire externally if you are not going to utilize the value these professionals bring to the table? As one colleague put it, "Interns are given more authority than external hires". It leaves people feeling frustrated and undervalued when they are kept out of conversations that they could contribute relevant ideas to. Instead of fostering a culture of secrecy and keeping status quo, managers should set employees up for success by bringing their ideas forward, involving them in the conversation and giving them the information and tools necessary to do their jobs.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @tt+1jqaps8ka

Unethical CCO doesn’t know Compliance, she’s Ethics focused only. All Compliance people were run off by her toxic and corrupt behavior. The most important thing on her agenda was to change the reporting lines for incoming ethics violations. She stacked the names of people you have to mention in an ethics complaint with so many of her minions that no complaint gets out from under her and the beauty queens BU. Sneaky and highly unethical way to control the narrative.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @mz+1jqaps8ka

I hear gogo is the new train engineer at daiken park. It’s the only engineer he’s good at - train wrecks. LOL

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @k6+1jqaps8ka

Hey Ho, CCO Has to Go! Nailing it! I've been in Commercial in other companies and when Compliance speaks people listen and everybody gets butt hurt. Can't say that's the case here. Mention the CCO and all you get is laughter and eyerolls. Not surprising GoGo didn't mean what he said when he talked about taking action on people not being right for the Company. Even less surprising, the CCO was hired by the self absorbed, look at me, subpar Beauty Queen. For God's sake, the fruit doesn't hang any lower than a CCO that can't tell the difference between fixed for floating and basis swaps. True story!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @je+1jqaps8ka

P66 just got hit with $6 million tariff on canola oil for Rodeo Renewed. Could've been easily avoided because while cargo vessel was sitting offshore for weeks. Where was the Chief Compliance Officer on advising Commercial on coming tariffs? (Crickets) That's what happens when you hire CCO for demographics over qualifications and experience. Gotta fire that nightmare -- compliance and ethics group has been gutted with turnover due to that witch. Or just keep racking up business "setbacks"....

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hq+1jqaps8ka

"Never once have i heard of an employee benefiting from an activist investor. I guess if you keep your job in all the cuts, then great. But why risk it"?
I case you haven't noticed, Go Go has laid off many employees over the last few years and has stated his intention to lay off more.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @h0+1jqaps8ka

I would say that the "independent director" has gotten used to burying his snout in the Phillips 66 trough and doesn't want anything to change.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gz+1jqaps8ka

Never once have i heard of an employee benefiting from an activist investor. I guess if you keep your job in all the cuts, then great. But why risk it?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gy+1jqaps8ka

Be careful about some of those "senior former insiders" you're bringing into this discussion. Some of them are former for a very good reason and were part of the problem to begin with.

I'm all on board for changing strategy, but Elliott and pretty much every hedge fund and private equity firm in the world are actively making this world a worse place. Fu-k em. I do not care what they think at all

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gw+1jqaps8ka

For clarity, this is not Elliott but rather the firm they hired to coordinate the proxy solicitation. Clearly astroturf. The comment outing it as such got a flood of downvotes overnight from the troll farm. Don’t be fooled. Instead go read the letter from the (formerly) Elliott appointed director Bob Pease

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gj+1jqaps8ka

For clarity, this is not Elliot, nor do we view them as a flawless solution. We have been in peripheral discussions with several other key shareholders, many of whom share similar concerns and have indicated a readiness to challenge leadership that appears indifferent to its own performance; a reality that was compounded by what the company put out today touting Laisher’s “success” since taking the helm. The coalition continues to expand, now including a half-dozen senior former insiders (ELT+2), as well as former external advisors, analysts, and one former board member. This situation is unlikely to conclude quietly whether in this proxy contest or the next.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ex+1jqaps8ka

If you think that Elliott isn't here to strip this company down to get short term profit you're delusional. Adjustments need to be made especially to Exec leadership and do away with the overpriced consultants. If you want to make Phillips 66 great again, Elliott isn't the way.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ee+1jqaps8ka

Lashier and McKinsey are a start. Unfortunately the issue is most of the Board of Directors and the entire ELT. They are all incompetent and disconnected from reality. New blood is needed.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ed+1jqaps8ka

Thoughts and prayers to the lowly Okapi/Elliott staffer who has to post this astroturf nonsense. Go take your vulture act somewhere else

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @e2+1jqaps8ka

#TRUTH

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dw+1jqaps8ka

I welcome Elliott and hope they foster an environment where new ideas are embraced, and not everyone simply conforms to the status quo. There are so many smart people at Phillips 66, but it feels like they’re often too afraid of the consequences if they voice their opinion. I've seen it firsthand: if you disagree with management, you can quickly be uninvited to meetings, sometimes even pushed off the team. It seems like a lot of people are hesitant to share ideas that don't align with the current company strategy, unsure of the fallout. As far as McKinsey we were told from the beginning, we either had to get on board with McKinsey’s approach or we might have to look for another job. The irony is that many at McKinsey don’t even understand our business and often hold meetings just to gather information from employees. Why are we paying McKinsey for insights we already have? Or worse, why are we giving them credit for things we've been doing all along, without ever recognizing the value we bring? It feels like we’ve wasted so much money on consultants when a manager (loss of accountability) could easily report the same value, without needing to hire an external consultant to schedule meetings and deliver the same insights. There definitely needs to be change and if Elliott is the one to create change, I'm supportive.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cv+1jqaps8ka

Seems like Elliott decided to show up to the forum.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @c8+1jqaps8ka

Or just go work for the competition.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @c1+1jqaps8ka

I want the old p66 back, but I don't think Elliott is the way to get there. They are a ruthless machine that dismantles companies for short-term profits. Anyone that thinks an Elliott takeover would bring back the good old days is sadly mistaken. Will just be new sh---y people telling you how to do your job and squeezing the bottom line even harder.

Kick out Lashier, kick out McKinsey, and let's get back to business.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bw+1jqaps8ka

Post a reply

: