Thread regarding Shell Oil layoffs

Exxon has more of an NOV operating focus so they don’t need as many employees vs Shell who likes to operate everything themselves with the exception of brazil.

@12f+1jtxnwjav

Something non-technical Shell staff in the US should probably realize is that the skills you have as a Shell employee are not marketable outside of Shell. Most consultants that work for Shell are just more skilled than the average Shell employee. Any project you work on at Shell, you'll realize very quickly that outside of the engineering Shell staff, the Shell employees feel like babysitters. Consultants are doing all the real work. The Shell leadership team has probably observed this and is trying to lean the company with only the Shell staff that actually does real productive work.

There are many third party agency supplied staff in Shell working for ten years or more charging Shell 100-150 USD per hour or even more. Shell leadership never thinks these third party supplied staff are expensive even if they have been with Shell for so long. These get to work for years in Shell with job security, stability and not laid off. But employees on Shell payroll at 50-100 USD per hour all benefits inclusive, some with just couple of years into Shell, appear very expensive and burdensome to Shell leadership. During reorganisations every couple of years these employees are made scape goats and let go, instead of first showing the door to third party agency supplied staff. Shell leadership is inhumane in the treatment of its employees and in subjecting them and their families to tremendous trauma because of reorganisations every few years.

Something is not right in Shell in the way expensive third party staff are retained but cheaper Shell payroll employees are laid off. Perhaps unethical practices, such as receiving kick backs, between Shell leadership and third party manpower supply agencies and other contracting companies. Otherwise what explains the fact that cheaper Shell payroll employees being laid off first.

Shell investors should be very concerned about commitment of Shell leadership to Shell, its profitability and their corporate governance because of unethical practices inside Shell.

Keep your job at Shell until they lay you off. Most people at Shell 5+ years in are institutionalized on the Shell way of workings and will get a huge culture shock when moving to other companies. And likely will be less pay for more work. If you know how to do your job and have people to talk to at Shell, just stay until they lay you off. The anxiety su-ks being employed by Shell because job security that was a part of the old Shell is gone. But you'll likely never work for a company the size of Shell or the culture again unless you somehow find employment with one of the FAANG companies. You'll miss Shell after being away for a few years.

Post ID: @10c+1jtxnwjav
AI Overview
Learn more
Shell's employee pay is generally considered to be competitive within the energy industry, with some reports suggesting it is on par with or slightly higher than its peers, particularly in roles requiring specialized technical skills or experience. However, pay can vary significantly based on location, specific job role, and level of experience

Post ID: @10c+1jtxnwjav

Dude or Dudette,
Seriously? Interview and see what the market will pay. Talk to a few head hunters. Read the results of SPE surveys. Now, to be honest I am comparing for technical staff; I have looked at that for the last 2 years. [Or, maybe Shell secretly loves me and paid me A LOT more than everyone else? My PIR is about 112%, so that isn't too exceptional.] I know that non-technical staff are generally paid less so I assume that it is even worse disparity...

To get Shell JG 2 pay, you have to be an advisor or VP at most oil companies.

Shell JG3 pay is pretty rare but for some very senior positions you can find that but need great reputation externally to get it.

You can get JG4 pay but you need to have 10-15 years more experience than at Shell.

At Shell JG5 (new hire) pay is what others advertise for jobs that ask for 5-10 years of experience.

Yes, Shell overpays. If you think you are underpaid interview and take a higher paying job if you can find one.

@zj+1jtxnwjav
do yourself a favor and google or prompt ai with this

“is shell employee pay high compared to its peers”

because the answer is “no”. i have no idea how this myth of shell US overpaying spreads. indians maybe?

Shell pay is high compared to the industry and Shell's employee count is high compared to competitors.

A few options:

1. Cut everyone's pay.
2. Fire expensive staff and slowly change them out for less expensive staff
3. Pay a premium for new experienced staff who are more productive... but they'd have to stop a lot of the redundancy and bureaucracy and reduce staff count
4. Get rid of the redundancy and bureaucracy, firing just some folks but they're still people
5. Sell to a better operator and invest the proceeds into other stock and bonds... if you do the math it pays better which is backwards and ironic... perhaps mo--nic

Past layoffs become null and void because Shell leadership lied publicly about true employee count and when comparing that count with Exxon.

"If we'd stop testing, there would be fewer cases." We need to stop counting heads so we can say we have no employees.

good point

you should tell YL to cut more, he hasn’t been trying hard enough

Exxon's upstream and downstream are both much bigger than Shell's. So you'd expect their work force to be bigger too, right? Per capita they just produce a lot more bbl or BOE per person.

Also Exxonmobil has historically reduced staff count by 3-4% annually. When Exxon and Mobil merged the head count was ~150,000. Now, 24 years later it is 61,000. That means more than 3% attrition (plus firing) per year. They have been annually hiring about 4% of their workforce... that means you guessed it every year 7% leave due to quitting, retirement, and firing. That is basically as big as the layoff that Shell does every 3 years. They just don't make a show of it and don't have the severance packages or voluntary nature. But every year, just before Thanksgiving, they fire people so they don't have to pay them for the holidays and they don't vest another year of service. Once ratings and rankings are done, they fire folks.

ExxonMobil has more turnover, but they claim they filter out more of the best and discard the bottom fraction. Just think we could treat people like replaceable cogs too!

The philosophical issue is what is the point of the corporation? Is the corp a social construct to enrich and benefit the shareholders only? Is there also a responsibility to the employees and their benefit? Is there a responsibility to society, morals and posterity?

I think it is responsible to all of these, shortsighted thinking is to just the quarterly numbers that are owed to the shareholders, that's what is wrong with a lot of corporations today. They really do owe something to the workers, society, and posterity too for the social construct to continue. It cannot be all quarterly gains otherwise you get the short term gains and long term bad moves made by CEO's lately. Quoting Black 47, "Fi__HT for the rights of the working man, the small farmer too, protect the proletariat from the bosses and their sc--ws! A republic for the working class, ECONOMIC LIBERTY"