re: the criteria being cost - the only issue is front line management and directors were not consulted so there was no input given to high level leadership who made the decisions which is why the choices seem so random - they were. numbers on a page. thats all it boils down to.
11 replies (most recent on top)
The criteria, from what I know, is that of cost. Someone on the top get a number (reduce cost by X-X) and then they go and pick who can they do without and still somewhat run the business. Those with the longest tenure often have the highest salary, those in the US (and especially some of the higher paying areas of the US) have high salary and benefit costs as well, so they go first. Last to go would be the entry level staff in India, LatAm that make about 8-10% of what the same job in the US would make. So, if I have a manager that makes $100k vs. two people below who make $50k, I would likely let go of that manager, because the two people will do more work and one of them can be later promoted to a manager for maybe $70k. Hope that helps.
Nielsen is shrinking and it’s difficult for us lower end employees to understand the criteria that is being followed as we don’t know what the end goal is.
I think this is why many of us struggle understanding why some people are still employed while others have left.
When you add the emotional impact of being laid off or potentially laid off, everyone seems to have a theory, age, pay, race, performance, outsourcing to name a few.
All the most reason town halls have pointed to a decrease in revenue being the biggest factor when making these decisions.
A company will do what they feel is needed to remain profitable; what is upsetting to many is the lack of empathy toward the employees.
That plus people who you have worked with for so many years now doing what they can to better position themselves, even at the cost of throwing their co-workers under the bus.
A manager does not have time to know every task that each employee is responsible for; we should all be on the lookout for people that have the managers ear and are feeding information to them when it comes to employee roles and performance.
From what I was told, HR has a system and apparently that's random. I'm thinking problems throwing names in a hat and then choosing. The people that were let go in my group it just makes no sense at all.
I agree with that sentiment completely "cutting off the nose to spite the face", especially in Oldsmar. It's absolute proof that the executives don't know anything about who you need to build and maintain good products. They really don't care about quality of our products, only lining their pockets. We've seen the decline in quality, the increase of production issues for several years now due to the loss of SME knowledge and, frankly, no dedicated testers. Buyer beware, because if you think you're seeing problems now, it's going to get way worse pretty soon.
Can someone in the "know" please let us know what the criteria were for the layoffs? Some of the really knowledgeable and high-performing people were let go, it seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face. It's insane to intentionally lose their expertise when we're already running on a skeleton crew.
There were managers who have been with the company 20+ years who were let go. It's sad to see, really. So much loyalty to come into work every day just to be told not to come back..
I can tell you from the Local Acct services side short tenure was also impacted.
I was part of the January wave. The HR person stated "there was a criteria", but failed to elaborate on such. My manager stated "it was not based on performance". It has to be net cost related and a lot of my former department is being outsourced to the TCS company in Guadalaraja Mexico... so part of the 'criterion' is 'are you replacable?'
My area it was our newest hires, but from what I've seen it looks like a mix of long tenure and newest. But then I also know a couple people who had been here maybe 5 years? So who really knows.
From what I can tell (based purely off of speculation) I am noticing the people leaving are all people with the longest tenure aka the highest paid employees. I think the only factor they are looking at is their bottom line.