The company cannot afford to relocate 5,000 employees, let alone 20,000-50,000Not to mention, they cannot afford severance. It’s an unrealistic & a clear sign they are running out of resources to liquidate. Not a good sign for investors, they are not stupid. I wouldn’t panic, I would prepare for impact.
10 replies (most recent on top)
If you are counting on a severance, dream on. You better have another plan.
Listend to the town hall call with Zee today. There is no severance !!!! Its on a case by case basis which in all liklyhood means its for L4+ and no one else. They will tell you what locaton to be in by what date and then you will have 2 warnings about showing up and then you are fired. Since you are being fired for cause, no severance. Its what I expected based on the cryptic messaging that has been coming out. The goal is to get rid of 15K people at the least cost to the company.
They have plenty of money, but will they pay it? Probably not! This is an attempt to cut jobs without surplus/layoffs. It looks better than firing 15k people, just put them in an unreasonable situation so they quit. For people working remotely, I would hope they qualify as displaced worker status, but not sure of all the qualifications for that.
If you agree to relocate, but can't afford it I don't see how they can legally fire you for it. The conversations that I've had with my manager make it clear that this isn't a move or you could be fired, but it is a "You are fired, we just have to dance around the words" situation.
I think this falls under wrongful termination they are well aware that this tactic is going to cause many people to either quit or be fired because that's the plan. But, the way they are going about it is causing undue stress and hardships. We will all be fine without AT&T, but it'd be great to see a lawsuit over this.
As for the people on here calling out, complaining about, and trolling the "whinners" get a life you pathetic pieces of dog tu-d! You are letting your jealousy of someone having a good position cause you to be a Jr Stanky, which is kind of ironic you are mad/upset at the people who are losing a job because you see them as "company people". Then you get on here and harass them seems to me you are the real company people.
Are you in pre-school?
"Stop saying that there is no money for severance pay. If there is money for CEO pay, raises and bonuses then there is money for severance for employees. Why nobody is questioning the how much money is wasted for BOD payments and what we get as result."
Thats the entire point of layoffs, sell offs, saving money... so the BOD can bail with golden parachutes!!!
You are probably those that think the company is in the best interest of the employees. Sigh.
Stop saying that there is no money for severance pay. If there is money for CEO pay, raises and bonuses then there is money for severance for employees. Why nobody is questioning the how much money is wasted for BOD payments and what we get as result.
I am impacted by "wave 1" of this debacle and while it is true that there is no relocation assistance, there is severance pay if we choose not to move to the new location by end of year 2023.
This is all you need to know to tell you exactly why they are doing this. No relocation - no desire for people to actually move. Severance - please leave the company.
I'd have slightly more respect for Stankey and co. if they would just be transparent about this.
Re free cash flow - keep in mind, while the company did miss FCF targets last quarter, that doesn't mean there is NO cash flow like some keep posting over and over. There is more cash flow coming into this company than the vast majority of companies out there. They want people to quit to get headcount down without mass layoffs so they are happy to pay severance.
Just speculation, but I think they are trying to drive as many people as possible to quit (retirement or find a new job) and they plan to fire the reminder who dont move by claiming that not showing up to their designated office location is violation of the Code of Business Conduct and per the Severance Pay Plan document, an individual is NOT eligible for benefits if they are terminated for violation of the Code of Business Conduct. Its the only way any of this makes sense.
"Frankly amazed the board tolerates them, but history is littered with companies where the directors just rubberstamped doom."
If you look at the tired old in-and-out-of-government-and-academia retreads on the board, can you pick any of them who would have a clue who should run this company instead? A man's got to know his limitations and they all do.
100 million of investors money. Again, reckless spending.
And yet they could spend $100M on creating what looks like a Disney attraction on Akard Street, staff and equip broadcast quality media facilities to produce pep rallies and eating contests, replace aging but wholly owned internal tech with expensive products from MS and Salesforce. Bungled spectrum auctions did not help. Overpaid on acquisitions and are now in debt to eyeballs.
Frankly amazed the board tolerates them, but history is littered with companies where the directors just rubberstamped doom.