Can those of you who got laid off or know someone who got the axe post their demographics (race, gender, age, education, etc.) and any other factors that may be related to why thy were chosen so we can get a sense of what they are targeting?
36 replies (most recent on top)
25% of my group was surplussed last month. All let go were 50 or over but we only had one guy under 50 anyway. It sounds like we may have been the exception. Reported up through Mcelfresh/Welday/Townes.
Over the past few years the boss got rid of those who weren't older white males. Mostly surpluses but he also got people transferred to other groups in the reorganizations. Somehow HR let him get away with it.
If you’re 50+ need to really take control.
I’m- not 50 yet, just let go, 3 short of R75 but may never work the same way again.
For now taking a month at a time- job market is odd for expectations.
Take control while you have a paycheck- practical.
All the best…
I heard some ATS techs were laid off. They hired 3 cheaper ones recently before letting 6 techs who's been there longer earning higher wage go.
“ Is it considered discrimination to lay off employees based on their geo location”
No. Not even remotely. Work location is not a protected class.
Per ADEA listing of Irene Shannon's Network Engineering & Operations organization, 18 out of 61 employees were cut. 7 out of the 18 expressed IIL. Ages spread between 38 and 68. What's notable is only one person let go was in Texas where they have the largest presence. Others are scattered from GA, CA, IL, CT, OK, WA. It's as if they are playing the collaboration zone game all over again. Is it considered discrimination to lay off employees based on their geo location?
I avoided layoffs by not working for the cesspool.
I just don't get why people think att is such a great place to work.
Been to two places since and promoted twice at each place and making much more money. att is a dead end with zero future. never heard the word layoff since I left the cesspool. other companies are not ran like att thank god.
Married, white male over the age of 60 with 2 business degrees and a technology certificate. Moved by my management from an exempt SME role to a non-exempt role any high school kid with any amount of sense could do. Many senior people were lumped together from SME roles to do this fungible sh-t work led by a white di----t AVP for a "special project".
I had over 15 years with this company busting my a$$ only to be lied to and told my position was okay, then suddenly surplused, thrown away like yesterday's trash.
@1wsz+1lgE0CFB, You made some good points but not everyone can be rated at the top even when they do their best. Plus, there's a lot of unconscious bias when it comes to ratings. Not everyone is born a grump. They became grump after receiving constant unfair and unjust treatments by their management. Blame the victim is common in this society.
I strongly disagree. It's the politics they cared the most, nothing else.
I probably don't know your work situation or and I definitely don't know your experiences. In my experience, no one in upper management is trying to do anything outside cookie cutter hr layoff blueprints, bisodes maybe nudging a friend up a spot or two when its close. None of these guys want to be in court over anything to do with a discrimination lawsuit, so they stick to the template and won't rock the boat. Its purely numbers, they want to keep their jobs too
@1wsz+1lgE0CFB, I strongly disagree. It's the politics they cared the most, nothing else. "Upper management only cares about numbers, not politics. "
My advice to anyone is to do your job so well you'll never scrape that bottom, and gender and race will be a non issue. Upper management only cares about numbers, not politics. If they get rid of 3, and one of the bottom 3 is a friend or a someone I. Upper management's wife, you bet they overrated that person, sucks but it's true. Stay off that bottom, be the best on your team and they will find a place for you even if your whole group is dissolved. I've seen it so many times where they always save the good ones even if they ha e to move them into something else. You don't have to be a boot li---r, just friendly, kind, hard working, knowledgeable, and trustworthy. Those simple attributes are worth more than anything. A bitter grump is considered toxic, and im sure that's part of the ranking. Generic terms and I don't know everyone's specific situations. I just know a lot of grumps that think they can get away with it because of time with the company. A positive attitude isn't always easy, but it goes a long way when your manager starts ranking people
If you and your supervisor are in the same good old boys club in Texas, then you gets preferential treatment and you are safe. A very capable Asian female in her 50s close to 60 was cut over her less knowledgeabe male co-workers who were mostly in their 50/60s with the exception of one in the 40s.
@1hoj+1lgE0CFB, The lazy female was also in her 50s. You can also call it racism or favoritism because the lazy female was the same race as her supervisor, but the black male was not.
The problem of claiming it solely based on performance or ranking is many supervisors have strong affinity/similarity/race/gender/age bias when they give out ratings.
First pass is your rating. Then HR reviews as an AT&T total; only a certain percent in each protected class can be surplussed. HR needs to decide who was a target but gets a pass for this round if too many protected. Then HR can look to those receiving a pension. With a goal to terminate pension liability, your gone before Rule of 75 applies. This motivates a lump sum and your off pension now, not 30 years from now.
I got an undeserved higher rating & survived. I attend the same church as my L2. But HR shuffled me to a new L2 and I have to work now.
Fast approaching 70 years of age and still with T, no plans on leaving any time soon! So, not all white males 50 and over are being let go, but best of luck to those affected! Been there, know the empty feeling of being laid off quite well!
The old white male over 50 is just doing fine in corporate America.
I don’t think there was anything in this related to race. You got ranked vs your peers and you were below the cutoff. However, I do believe that retirement eligible took the biggest hit and was a big factor in the score based on other posts and what I’ve seen myself in who got let go. It makes sense, if you had to chose between the worker with a family that has many years left to work vs someone that has kids out the house, met rule of 75 years ago, probably the highest paid person on the team and likely to retire any time, who would you pick?
@jtc, @wgl what you have written sounds like an ageism. You can see it more clearly if you put it like this:
"I know a person in its 50s working as level 1 network specialist have been surplus'ed 3 times in the past. The person was able to find internal jobs within 60 days in the past, and moved up to level 2 eventually, but now they want people out of payroll in 14 days so there's no way to survive this time.
The person had a co-worker who was lazy, bossy, non-technical, and didn't want to learn. When the person complained about the coworker to the manager, the manager wanted the person in its 50s to train that other coworker, and than chose to keep a lazy (but younger) coworker around, and gave a boot to the person in it's 50s."
Area managers were asked to rank their employees based on a few factors, and they cut the bottom of that list. My group loat 3 and was a diverse group. A young guy making low money was one. I am almost certain there were no demographics specifically targeted. It was straight rankings as far as I know, and my boss isn't shy to tell me the process, just the specifics, because we've worked together for years now. Please don't read something in that is not there.
“ 7 people in my group let go that I know of. All white males over 50. I knew one of them ok, was a good person, just doing a specialty role that wasn’t perceived as adding a ton of value. The others, I didn’t know well enough.”
Names?
Posting starting with News Flash!
Is exactly correct. AT&T or SBC more like it, has been doing layoffs in every quarter, in every year since the late 90's. They are very well versed in how to avoid a layoff discrimination lawsuit.
While you might see under one STD, all 50's white guys get hit, what you don't see is the entire scope of the business case.
BTW, for the most part, IT is mostly male and mostly guys in their 50's, so who else are they going to pick.
The other part, typically there are certain job titles that are in scope, and others are out of scope.
All layoffs pass thru HR & Legal checks and these people have done this work for a very long time, so they are better than most at this.
News Flash! If you think for a nanosecond that ATT does not collect data on the demographics of each round of surpluses, you're wrong, wrong, wrong. There are published lists of each level, age, etc. for each employee surplussed. Quit with the lies about over targeting of white males over the age of 40 ... These comments are intended for one purpose only...to trigger fear and anger that this population is being layed off more than others.
I've seen the HR reports that break down, for example, how many L2s, the ages, locations, etc. Further, ATT would never put the business at risk to target mostly older employees...You underestimate the organization, they have the business of layoffs down pat for a reason; to avoid litigation. Your leadership gets a number and that gets pushed down through the organization. As they say, no one is safe, regardless of your title, age, color, religion, past performance. So quit with the lies!
Everyone I know who was released from CDO was a white US citizen male over 50. However, they kept all of the Indian HIB people which seems to be against the law.
Totally diverse group in our area - it was small but should have been larger. Still remaining are many level 1 work at homers, paid hourly. Either barely doing anything or doing something and milking the OT clock — no surplus there. Just high earnings at end of year. Also many L3s with no direct reports
7 people in my group let go that I know of. All white males over 50. I knew one of them ok, was a good person, just doing a specialty role that wasn’t perceived as adding a ton of value. The others, I didn’t know well enough.
All cis gendered white males in my group. Not enough boxes checked.
More names and departments of those impacted should be posted
By the way, the black male I was talking about that got axed 3 times was not a under performer nor the pain in the a-s, but he had a female Caucasian co-worker who was lazy, bossy, non-technical, and didn't want to learn. When he complained about her, his manager wanted him to train her and chose to keep her around.
I know a black male in his 50s working as level 1 network specialist have been surplus'ed 3 times in the past. He was able to find internal jobs within 60 days in the past, and moved up to level 2 eventually, but now they want people out of payroll in 14 days so there's no way to survive this time.
just go to the media news outlets . they will sniff and hound around for a big story like the one you are looking for.
10% of my team were the chosen ones. Pretty much all ringers. That's a fact.
Over 10% on my team. Of that…male, female, black, white. Retirement eligible and not. Generally regarded as under performers. That is truly the only common thread I see. These are facts.
It’s the ones they made work miserable. Whether you are a top performer or not if you made work miserable for your boss or team you are out. Doesn’t matter age, race , gender. If you are the pain in the a-s you are the one leaving.
It could have been your “I’m important “ attitude or the fact your boss had to remind you constantly to get something done. If you are the employee that causes more work for your boss that’s how you are selected.
Yes, please let us know what victims group you currently belong to. We may be able to see trends and cancel/boycott something
Just a friendly reminder - posting to many details can identify you, so give as much info you can, but stay vague enough (post round numbers instead of exact number, region instead of location,etc)