30-35% from what I hear, mostly those with over 5 years service.
OP: @d1+1kh7va1kv
Why go after trained and experienced people in Corporate? Wouldn’t it be logical to cut newcomers first?
5 replies (most recent on top)
@OP it’s all about $$. The more senior the person, the bigger the $$ save; just push all the work to the junior folks.
Agree, not only do experience people cost more, they are also done with the BS and challenge stupid ideas.
I’m not sure cost cutting is the only drive - these new execs are getting paid a ton of money.
What is amazing is the folks that have done zero work in the past couple of years are still employed …some mid level, some at the very top (so not sure how this turnaround is going to happen)!
This is an inaccurate figure, it’s more like 20%. I’d know, I look at network traffic all day every day. Including severance package emails (best way to tell overall volume)
Age/tenure is obvious. If you cut those now for what should be a “performance neutral layoff” - it avoids higher costs and higher severance payouts down the road. Performance doesn’t matter, payroll downtrend and forecasting does. Namaste.
- Mr.Chow
Our department cut some experienced team members while new employees in training still have a job. They were all making similar salaries. Bullsh-t.
Trained and experienced people cost too much. Newbies are cheaper. Sycamore's primary concern is cost-cutting. It's all about making the bottom line look good. Not so sure a turnaround is in the cards.