Continued age-ism in ranking

So for the last few years many (all?) orgs have combined rank groups. For example, instead of ranking 28/29's separately from 26/27 like we used to do - those groups are combined. There is a separate rank list for each CL but then HR merges them.

Normally you would think this would be a disaster for the (usually) younger 26/27 group as they would effectively be competing against more experienced employees for rank. But of course, the corruption is strong with XOM these days. HR "merges" those lists in a way that skews the 26/27 groups above the 28/29. The overall distribution is even but statistically the 28/29's rank lower.

It's a trick to give rank points to younger employees. Helps retain them I guess. But it also means the 28/29's get pushed further down and into PIPs more than the 26/27's. But hey it saves the company pension payouts so they are fine with it.

Comment! It's anonymous!

16 replies (most recent on top)

There are no, or very very very few, remaining retirement eligible employees since most were NSIed 2020 to 2022, so now XOM will have to eats its own young ones. lolololololol

Are we just forgetting that older people were explicitly protected from layoffs in 2020 based on nothing but their age? Literally the definition of age-based discrimination but it’s federally protected because we live in a gerontocracy.

This is the textbook "Southwest Airlines" business model. When Southwest Airlines started as a corporation, they had the lowest OPEX in the airline industry.

Why? Southwest Airlines recruited 20- and 30-year-olds to staff their planes, reservation desks, customer service, ... etc. The rest of the industry had an average age distribution of 45 to 55 among the workforces.

20- and 30-year-old salaries are substantially less than 45- to 55-year-olds so Southwest Airlines could complete on "ticket price" since they had significantly lower OPEX than the rest of the industry.

I would suggest that we look at our OPEX since 2019 and we will find that the average is on a downward trend and will continue on a downward trend for the next decade.

Bottom line: A younger workforce will allow us to be more competitive long term.

All the oldies saying younger employees would be ranked lower in a fair world forget that they themselves benefited from this system when they were young and then did nothing to change it when they gained power. No you did something worse, your generation pulled up the ladder and then shipped the whole thing to Asia. So Stfu, get pip'd, and retire. We'll join you in 10 yrs when the Indians, Chinese, and Malaysians have taken our jobs upon TMTS completion.

@xgy+1mEMxV8G

If this were true for the bottom 30% of the employees, why did management recruit the "underperforming" employees in the first place?

Your logic is flawed.

look at the rankings for technical jobs - 40 is OLD! If you are technical, you need to have an exit plan before you are 40 years old because Exxon has an exit plan for you. Carrer planning for technical is out the door at 40. As you train those in India and KL, your exit plan starts earlier. In a few years, 35 will be old for technical. If you want to be technical, you'll need to be technical somewhere else.

What kind of person comes to a layoff site and defends this he-l hole? Must be getting paid

Rank points don’t exist. In my org 26-27 is the assessment pool and when the meeting is over, results are final. There isn’t an HR roll up anymore

@1lgq If you’re young you shouldn’t bother with a place like Exxon to begin with.

@mmo+1mEMxV8G - while its true they are pushing responsibility down to 26/27 its at the expense of meaningful work for 28/29s. I dont care about another promotion but I do want work that is representative of decades of good service. AND most importantly I don't want to get pipped without cause. That's the game they are playing.

If you are young now - enjoy the boost the company is giving you but its temporary - remember that they will fire you for being old someday too.

@tva It seems to be the case most of the time.

Tell you what; you enjoy working for the rest of your life, and I’ll enjoy being younger and living longer, deal?

@tpe+1mEMxV8G That is far from always the case, I can see enough examples of older folks who are financially independent and then being deliberately singled out for underperforming, as they are empowered to not live in fear of their boss or EM. The company wants people it can exert control over.

@clb That’s fine. I also won’t be clinging to a toxic job due to lack of financial planning and poor life decisions.

Bottom line: you can’t do any better and you need the money - and your boss knows it.

mmo+1mEMxV8G- You will age faster than you think and your ranking will begin to drop and XOM will get you too.

OP,

We are pushing responsibilities and job descriptions that were historically CL28/29 positions down to lower salary CL26/27 positions. This is a way of lowering OPEX long term.

Bottom line, we need less CL28/29 positions as their job descriptions disappear.

CL28/29 positions will be reserved for Directors, Department Heads and V.P.'s only.

What if it isn’t ageism? What if you’re just not as good at your job as you used be?

Have you thought about that?

Thread regarding ExxonMobil Corp. layoffs

Continued age-ism in ranking

16 replies (most recent on top)

Post a reply