Thread regarding SAS Institute layoffs

Shame on you SAS. Shame on you.

People who have worked hard and who have loyally stayed here even as the company began its slow sad decline years ago just keep getting kicked while we're down.

What's the reward for staying here and working for people who are incompetent or literally stupid and sometimes worse? More insults, more passive aggression, more decisions that further erode morale when it's already at a historic low.

Internal mobility is a joke. No company would need to even have a special internal mobility policy if people were held accountable for their performance and their effect on the company overall. It started out well enough when the quiet chatter about not being able to advance or further our careers became a roar.

Now no one can change jobs internally regardless of their qualifications without being knocked down multiple levels in their role. It's insulting and humiliating and it's clearly meant to either make experienced employees so angry or discouraged they quit, or it's meant to only afford the youngest employees the opportunity to try different things or escape a bad or dead-end job or situation.

The problem is not that I don't understand why this is being done. I do understand. I just happen to think it might be the most destructive and boneheaded decision I have EVER seen implemented companywide.

If an employee has low performance ratings, by all means not that person back a rung or so if they try to change jobs. I don't necessarily agree that that's right either, because at a healthy and thriving organization, people who are not performing up to standards would be let go so they don't create a toxic environment of allowing poor performance to spread like poisonous mold. but that would at least make a tiny bit of sense, perhaps be a bit logical.

This thing with touting internal mobility all over linked in and then quietly revealing the gotcha moment where an employee is told that if you pursue it, you will be kicked back to career level is beyond the pale. it used to be that you might get knocked back a rung (again, not right imo) but you at least wouldn't lose any of your salary. now that's not the case anymore, the hiring manager can decide to cut your salary.

While we all know it will take an act of god to ever get promoted here again for anyone over 35 or so, and no one apparently will ever be promoted to principal or senior principal or distinguished or anything that like that without an actual religious miracle happening.

So F U, all you fellow old dopes who stuck around and worked your tails off for managers and directors and VPs who shouldn't be running a dollar store let alone a team or department at a global software company. If you weren't sure before, you can be sure now that this company is in its death throes.

by
| 7951 views | | 52 replies (last February 27, 2025) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1sGVd1D8

52 replies (most recent on top)

Glad I made my principal-level job change 2 years ago. This wasn't an issue for me then.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ycy+1sGVd1D8

I left SAS a few years ago but have many friends who are still there. I know several people personally who transferred to a different team within the past year and the roles were apples to apples. Same job title, same core skills required, same everything.

Every single one of them was told they could not transfer at Principal level. That to change teams, they had to accept being knocked down to Senior, even though the majority of them had held that title for close to 10 years.

there was no explanation of why. it was stated as a condition of internal mobility. And now most people trying to move internally may have their salaries cut too, not just their bonuses.

Tell me SAS wants these employees to leave without telling me SAS wants them to leave.

Don't think anyone is blaming the CEO directly. Seems to be a finance driven policy. It's punishing hardworking, loyal employees. They're the ones with the most knowledge who are the heavy lifters holding up the young people who know almost nothing and the managers and directors who don't do or have never done the work of the people below them.

Good job SAS. Great place to work my ar-e.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1lsc+1sGVd1D8

"SAS is actively encouraging its most experienced, most expensive talent to leave."

I'd change "encouraging" to "pressuring".

Encouraging would be to offer another VRBP, but that looks increasingly unlikely.

However, the previous VRBP's has resulted in many older employees hanging on hoping they offer it again.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1zoh+1sGVd1D8

What the heck are you talking about? You can definitely keep your level depending on what the career switch is.

Going from software developer to security engineer? Good chance you keep it.

Going from sales to something more unrelated like software engineer? Yeah, you probably shouldn't keep your level.

SAS has PLENTY of problems but this complaint is without merit

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1tdu+1sGVd1D8

This is just sad to hear.

SAS was once a Great Place to Work but that seems a distant memory now.

So much for...
"Treat employees like they make a difference, and they will".
"SAS's greatest asset drives out the gate every day, I want to make sure they want to come back".

At the time we thought he was being altruistic, but actually it was only ever self serving for him and his family. Now treating employees like sh-t, is actually the best way to exit for him and his family.

The alternative narrative is that he's actually out of touch and doesn't really know what's going on in the business anymore...but I don't believe that.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ojd+1sGVd1D8

Kinda of makes you think there is no long game...cut your losses and cash out?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1xii+1sGVd1D8

Consider these data points:

  1. SAS has had two buyouts of several hundred senior employees.
  1. Hundreds more left during the pandemic stimulus, when SAS failed to match market pay rates.
  1. Senior and Principal employees have been pushed out of SAS in recent years, for “not performing at their level”.
  1. 40+ Senior and Principal testers were publicly laid off last year.
  1. Senior folks must now take pay cuts in order to pursue open positions. To change jobs, they’re better off hitting the road.

That last is just one more data point in a clear pattern: SAS is actively encouraging its most experienced, most expensive talent to leave.

When you see five consistent data points, it’s not a coincidence. It’s a plan.

Obviously, encouraging experienced talent to leave is a terrible long term strategy.

However, in the short term, this strategy improves sales-per-employee, profits-per-employee, and all other metrics desirable in a sale or IPO.


by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bkw+1sGVd1D8

@OP+1sGVd1D8 You sound like you are in your death throes…

I can sympathise with some of it ai suppose. Not my experience but a sampling of 1 is worth zip whichever way it slices.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @jaj+1sGVd1D8

I have a funny feeling it's not stated anywhere in an official policy.

when you apply for an internal role, assuming you are not rejected, the HR person assigned to recruit for that position will tell you that if you pursue it, you will get the job at the base or career level. which means sm--k in the middle of the career path, where there's no associate or senior or any other adjective on the job title.

so say you are a Principal software developer and you decide you want to pursue a role in, for example, marketing. Regardless of your current level in your role and regardless of your capability or transferable skills regarding the new role, HR will tell you that switching jobs will put you at career level.

in the past they would add that your salary would not be reduced, only your level, which does of course affect the size of your bonus. they make it very clear so that people understand this before they proceed.

some time in the past few months they started telling people that if they're salary met or exceeded the top end of their current range, the hiring manager for the role where they would be moving backward in level may decide to offer them a reduced salary. this is on top of a reduced level which as we all know affects your bonus payout.

I was told this two weeks ago for a job I saw posted internally that I got really excited about. I know people who agreed to have their titles reduced in order to get other opportunities. it hurt them and insulted them but they agreed to it. this is even worse. I can't make any sense of it.

I know the reason they are doing it is for appearances for this alleged IPO aka buyout. doing this is smoke and mirrors. it's not going to fool anyone. the only way it lowers the average age of the company's employees is to make the older ones mad so they quit. yes it will reduce the ranks of people who are at the top of their career ladder, stalled out and unable to advance. what the latter has to do with IPO readiness isn't clear. but it's very clear it has been very destructive for morale and employee engagement.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cbc+1sGVd1D8

Can you state what the change in policy is?

Previously if you moved within the company, you (typically?) did not go backwards in either salary or job title and now that is no longer necessarily the case?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @szf+1sGVd1D8

Yes I agree. This was a really terrible decision and it's creating a lot of bitterness and resentment. Is it really worth it to make the company look younger somehow to buyers or investors? I don't know who made this decision but I feel truly sorry for anyone who is in a bad spot and gets lured in by the promise of internal mobility only to get a rude awakening instead.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @tvk+1sGVd1D8

Yeah I know more than 10 people this has happened to. Every one of them said yeah no thanks. What a kick in the face. These are very smart capable people who don't deserve to be treated like this. Any team would be lucky to have them. But they're treated like dirt by a place they have all given more than 15 years to. It's puzzling.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @wxw+1sGVd1D8

Post a reply

: