Has anybody else noticed this? Not all, I know a few recent hires who were also laid off, but most of the people I know who were shown the door are at best in their late 40s and mostly in their 50s and above. I'm not surprised if the goal is to get rid of higher earners, but it does make me question the legality of it all.
8 replies (most recent on top)
@a6 not sure how long you have been here but there is no way it’s healthy to stay at that age . Take the vrp
Let go of a few young people who aren't cutting it. Then they go after the older people they want out. Averages....That is a Pepsi standard.
They are openly discriminating based on age, without laying off. I noticed most promotions and opportunities are given to the youngest, preferably non-white. Most notably you see this with how they treat campus hires.
There are very clear legal requirements and calculations for what constitutes age discrimination, and all decent HR departments know how to stay within the guidelines in order to not break the law.
well I am 45+ level 2 and far from a high earner after 21 years. Someone in my old zone has been with the company 1 year and makes 10k less than me
It’s discrimination at best! Very subtle and smart way to get rid of 45+ years old employees not it doesn’t make it right… unfortunately the law favors the employer not the employees
Id like to hear your thoughts on 62+ workers.
People who have been in level for a long time that have accrued enough merit increases (or that % increase for voluntary lateral moves) to put them at the extreme end of the bell curve for compensation
When I was a first time manager several of my reports 1-2 levels lower were out earning me by 30k+. Comp for entry level has not scaled with COL. The number may be higher but dollar for dollar new hires are cheaper on paper (not counting what they "cost" the company in on-boarding, ramp-up, and lack of knowledge)