Anyone know who’s responsible for the decisions made on who’s staying or being let go? There’s many with seniority who have been laid off.
9 replies (most recent on top)
age used to be a filter but not so much anymore
say you have a workgroup with some young under 50 some old 50 +. the target is the 50+ since they most likely have more years in cost more in salary and medical claims and wont put up with the nonsense. So how to get that target without triggering age issues. All depends on the age mix of the group. If all 50+ or maybe 1 or 2 young ones this round you sacrifice the young ones this time even though cheaper to homogenize the group so next time around age filter gone and only have to worry about LGBTQ BIPOC+ issues. First cut might have the bonus of breaking morale and some might choose to retire early so you get those for free since no severance. Filter the group of 50+ and is hetero white male home run terminate all those first in round two since zero fear of wrongful termination. now filter based on multiple classifications. Protected would be something like black + female + trans or le----n 3 retention points pass that one over. mix and match the combinations then figure out who has the lowest score of retention points / equity for esg reporting. The grouping with the lowest retention point score are your next termination candidates. Or the nuclear options eliminate the entire group and job titles offshore with new titles and group name in new business unit. This is effective to get around the union barrier that may be in place with collective bargaining. The search query is more complex then it used to be since there were not so many variables in the past as they have now. The key takeaway is remove the unprotected outliers first to make people all in the same group. Now it gets more complex say some other manager has a different mix and needs more picks to homogenize their group. You can horse trade go light on your group to help them homogenize for the next round with a few of your cuts this time and next time both groups are cleaned up and the real cutting can begin. It quite the complex chess game. All depends if in the near future the leader jumping ship so needs a good qtr or 2 before bailing then once safely landed at next opportunity brings those that helped along
Protected worker class? Please elaborate.
Thank you.
@1jnc+1s8lvro8 This is exactly how it works
Finance runs the various models and says we need to cut this much out of the budget to meet the guidance provided to wall street for the given qtr. Labor is the best way to reach the goal. The line item for budget tightening is then handed to legal and HR to hunt for all the people who are not in a protected worker class. After the primary filtering the list is scrutinized to make sure no one that has executive protection has been caught in the net. Net filter is target aquired companies since bought market share / customers dont really need the onshore employees. Start building replacement staff offshore before dropping the hammer on the onshore employment group. The old way of having to be terminated employees train replacements game no longer works. Now the target savings is worked out how to execute. Are we in politcal environment where it pays to have layoffs in public yes or no. Current cycle no must be on the down low. Now need to filter by state to see gross head count by state to be eliminated. If high number split over multiple rounds per state. Budget for 60 days of pay but no work out of the heads that get chopped and lock them out on notification to get them off the books ASAP to take write down in current qtr with possibility of clean slate for next quarter. Do all the bloodletting by end of Q3 if possible for good q4 and end of year. Rinse and repeat as necessary. Throw a few restructures in as need to build discontent and people will self layoff and avoid severance and unemployment payout if possible.
"Business leaders today say their companies care about more than profit and loss, that they feel responsible to society as a whole, not just to their shareholders. Corporate social responsibility is their new creed, a self-conscious corrective to earlier greed-inspired visions of the corporation. Despite this shift, the corporation itself has not changed. It remains, as it was at the time of its origins as a modern business institution in the middle of the nineteenth century, a legally designated “person” designed to valorize self-interest and invalidate moral concern. Most people would find its “personality” abhorrent, even psychopathic, in a human being, yet curiously we accept it in society’s most powerful institution. The troubles on Wall Street today, beginning with Enron’s spectacular crash, can be blamed in part on the corporation’s flawed institutional character, but the company was not unique in having that character. Indeed, all publicly traded corporations have it, even the most respected and socially responsible among them..."
Being laid off vs being let go. Laid off has possibility of call back after certain things may or may not happen. Let go is just that. Open communication with human resources is extremely important during all this.
From my understanding. There is a certain quota of layoff that are agreed upon first. Say 5 people from one team or 10%. I’ve heard an entity gets involved to ensure no discrimination and that the distribution meets certain quotes in terms of gender, race, geography, age, tenure, etc. Everyone on my teams who have been a part of the layoffs before have unfortunately always been performers who had lower ratings or whose value had been called into question. That may be a coincidence but the choices on my teams not been surprising. Obviously that doesn’t apply when they’re dismantling entire teams or divisions though.
The Man
They need X employees. They cannot show any type of discrimination. So typically they need to balance or reflect the staff for age, gender, race etc. This is an awful approach doing this every 45-90 days until you get to the 25K layoffs you need. It destroys culture. They should have offered Voluntary packages and/or offered hours/pay cut voluntary for any near retirement. Shows a real lack of ingenuity. There are ways to do a win/win on staffing cuts and not decimate morale and culture.