For those remaining that we want to target, let's make it difficult and wrong, until they quit.
I will never stand up for this company again.
Unappreciative ba----ds.
5 replies (most recent on top)
@a7 did you reply to the wrong message?
Agree. New ideas disregarded as long time Oracle managers think they know everything bc they've only worked there lol
HR didn't have any say on the list.
HR was mere working out , to not get sued.
Probably the AI-riff tool developed under clay , worked charm.
Pretty sure, the stack ranked based on cost/favorites/insubordination/difference of opinion was used by VP/Director.
@a1 Agree with everything you said except the part about significant influence over tbe redundancy list. Some might give the impression that they do, but there is enough evidence to indicate thar it is centrally managed in consultation with local legal and HR only for labout laws compliance
I am sure I am convinced that many of those affected were caught in a rift with immediate managers regarding working styles. Often, employees were relegated to 'layman' tasks like documentation, without being given the opportunity to upskill or contribute to meaningful transformation.
Many middle managers clung to an outdated, hierarchical style—expecting compliance rather than appreciating new ideas. When new perspectives were introduced, they were often dismissed as 'disagreements,' and the employee was labeled as uncooperative or difficult. Because these managers had significant influence over the layoff lists, these interpersonal frictions likely played a role. The signs were there since September; many were siloed or intentionally given lighter workloads, effectively being sidelined months before the final decision.
many topic directors and Vp still there, who are still old school.