The ELT has been saying that this reorg will result in a workforce reduction of 15-20% on average company-wide. However, it seems every function is actually cutting 30-50%. How does the math on this actually work out?
21 replies (most recent on top)
@e3+1jvf4tbgp
rmbr that out of scope jobs are not listed
so its just an illusion based on the listings
Only way to stop this is for every last person to strike.
Call in sick all next week.
Anyone in doubt about cuts to uk, aus, or sg just look at the volume of jobs posted in those locations. Slim pickings
@cn+1jvf4tbgp doubt they can achieve 70% in UK AU SG
most are under ST BU profit centre..so protection is there for those guys
It cut 70% high cost place like US, UK, Aus and Singapore
@cc+1jvf4tbgp: that is exactly the point & what’s so rotten about what dear old uncle Mike & his crew & fu--ing McKinsey cooked up.
I have ZERO problem with layoffs that are necessary especially during challenging economic times. I do however have a huge problem with these lying pr1cks justifying their actions with that excuse all while continuing increase their remuneration.
The fact that fu--ing MW can agree to getting a multi-million dollar raise while that lying a$$h0l3 is literally driving colleagues to mental breakdowns over getting laid off tells you everything you need to know about this sorry excuse for a human being’s integrity and all the other tons of cr4p that he’s been selling for years. He has NO conscience.
But wait!
There is more!
The catch: there won't be too much "fat cut" as the upper management will increase their salaries and bonuses and that will need another 15-20% "cut" in a few years.....
Parts of the company were already FAR leaner than the competition. I get cutting fat, but if you cut muscle and bone, well - you get what you pay for. That's a "lose-lose".
15-20% based on worldwide employee count. Much deeper in the good ol’ US of A
Did the ELT lie?? 🤣😂😝
What do you think?
Those weasels know exactly what they are doing as they line their pockes. Hope they all go to he-l.
Anyone else had some employment attorneys reach out via L1nked1n yet?
Of course they would give you the conservative number. $2-3b in structural savings will be $5B
Reduction is offset with hirings in India, Manila & BA. Hence, the net reduction is lower mathematically. It's all all illusion.
Yes many people forgot to factor in the increase in numbers in the other business units would result in higher impact on their own BUs
They always gave the net number. Hire 100 there, lay off 110 here would be a net of only 10 reduction in headcount
The math works because of how much Chevron is growing in ENGINE, Manila, and Buenos Aires. A 20% global reduction plus significant growth in certain places means significantly higher reductions in the US.
20% company wide total. But some locations are growing or at least starting close to flat, so that means other locations must be higher than 20%. Math. The ELT hasn't been direct about this but they haven't exactly shied away from explaining this either... Just some people can't believe they would actually be in scope.
15-20 entire company, 30-50 US workforce.
Yes, it will ultimately end up being 30-50% when you factor in total attrition.
Math ain’t mathing.
50% would be an appropriate number given the number of people that add no value.