I've been told by a few people I have nothing to worry about because I'm one of the newer hires and this layoff will target those with higher pay, meaning people who've been at Verizon for a while. Is this true? I'd like to believe it, but I'm too scared to get my hopes up.
7 replies (most recent on top)
If you have less than a year, don't work in a store and your whole group is not being dismantled you are likely safe. It's rare (but not impossible) that employees with < 1 service are RIFd.
@OP Fund new friends. Those people are clueless.
100% inaccurate
No, its not true. Longer tenure = higher severance. And most new hires earn more money than people who have risen up through the ranks because they started so low at a time whe. Wages were lower. But no, your tenure has no bearing. If you are a top performer and a longer tenured person is a little burnt out and slacking then yea you'd probablt be safer, but...
It’s hard to say in 2020 when they did rifs and some store closures it was tenure based meaning the senior reps had priority for example ( 10 reps ) but only budgeted for let’s say 6 those with tenure were given the option to stay in store, pick from inside sales , care or take severance . 2 left one took severance one took inside sales anyone left with no tenure was given the same option to take severance or go to care or inside sales or in their case another store. The remaining 2 would choose the alternate however let’s say those with tenure had decided to stay in the store 2 more with less tenure from the original 10 would have been impacted. Sometimes it’s good to have tenure sometimes it’s not it can go either way this time. 2020 we had the advantage of needing more care and inside sales now it doesn’t seem that way
not sure but I don't think thats probable this round from what I heard-- when you file 8K with the SEC they usually discuss in some terms the reduction of cost-- Verizon is yet to file. But if they fire people with out a basis other than salary- that leaves them open to labor lawsuits-- so there has to be direction. Some newer hires if the position aligns with the current strategy then that would make sense-- once the dust settles after this round, what i heard is that they may consider cost/salary but I thing there's more to consider to make that the priority. Not trying to be over confident-- but hiring someone new for my role may save you some money but definitely won't be able to do my tasks as efficient while doing it well-- I am currrently interacting with new developers and part of it is understanding data infrastructure and needs of the channel which is business acumen you only get by being around for decades enough to see repetitive patterns.
Heres an example -- every couple of years we start to care about customer upgrades/retention-- (when we don't its usually just GGs) so when we start looking at upgrades typically we will start to analyze traffic and what opportunity is available to extend their DP, then once we do that we usually start to do a lot of offers for trade ins etc that affect our equip subsidy, then leaders want to start looking at churn, then once we look at churn we start to look at port analysis-- and so forth and forth---
Being in this industry/channel you somewhat can predict what things leaders will need in order to measure a shift in strategy because most likely you encountered it before-- someone new won't necessarily know all those intricacies and essentially at the leadership level they are looking for you to provide data in order to measure effectiveness of strategy and give recommendations beyond that -- that they will ultimately make a decision on
Years of supporting RDs, RPs, SVPs, review prep, ops, marketing, CS, sales etc--- gives you a lot of invaluable experience so efficiency + value add of your job function I think will still be prioritized over salary.
Maybe. You'll know Thursday.