Most selected to layoff seem to be in their late 45s and over. Does this mean there are grounds for age discrimination?
Often they select 5 to 7 people in the same job category. Then segregate them by Race, Age, Gender. Anyone over 45 and above will be let go.
@2fgx+1uyA0qvt - For every person in any age range they laid off, they will be able to point to many at the same level or similar job function in the same age range that they did not lay off. The difference will be that you may make 20% more than someone in a comparable role in the same age range, or you make the same but they got rated exceeds expectations the past two years and you got rated meets expectations. It's definitely not age discrimination if those are the reasons - and they'd better be able to back it up if they get sued. It's plausible to say the only reason they haven't been sued is because people need to retain their severance but hey - if no one sues then that data never comes out.
Late fifties, handicap, female, Caucasian ladies off last year. Most of my team were laid off - all in their late fifties (one in his sixties). Reason for being laird off: blank on all my paperwork. Yes, it’s ageism.
The layoffs at CVS really have nothing to do with race, age etc.
However, our culture now has everything to do race age and all things hate.
This is what happens when you reach rock bottom.
Proven by this post, and the replies here. CVS has culturally become one of the worst places on earth. We are right there with prisons and being in the prison yard where segregation is a thing. I'm surprised there hasn't been a shanking over a piece of cake in the cafeteria that Leroy stole from Thomas.
CVS select only Minorities over 45 years old NOT Caucasian White. There are thousands of uneducated Caucasian Whites well over 55 are working in CVS. They have the job security which really shows the standards of this company. Some of them have been working for 20-30 years. Some of their family members are also working in CVS running their own mafia style operations. This is a nepotism of the highest kind. Anyone talk about them will be selected for layoffs. Most of them are Facebook buddies.
Older workers with low titles are usually just there to collect paycheck, change my mind.
Gross creepy mentality. Nice try trying to distract folks from nepotism in CVS lol!
I can attest that in my work group. I know three people at senior manager and above we’re over age 55. I personally was 60.
This is true. Only one person older than me on my team, and that market was already down one that was not backfilled. My coworkers were newer and younger. No performance issues mentioned once, mentor, trainer, and above average reviews. Severance paperwork stated laid off due to performance. That’s how they get around it. You sue, you risk losing the severance. So, most, myself included, take the hit to get the pay. Bullsh-t, shady practices. What goes around, comes around…
This is such a cope post. Sounds like a typical middle aged Indian manager. People are let go for reasons like speaking up, being expensive, or not ok with team politics in CVS. Age is hardly a factor
The people I knew in 2023 that were laid off were let go because they were 1) relatively expensive or 2) low performing or at least not performing in the way leadership wanted. CVS has enough HR people and lawyers involved in vetting who was selected for layoff to avoid overdoing any protected class.
I've been through two layoffs at Aetna. First layoff only two from my department were laid off myself included. We were the two employees who were vocal about the inconsistencies of processes, mis-management, false reporting, data integrity, regulations, and management favoritism. So, we got the axe.
The second layoffs I experienced I survived the layoffs and I think I know why. My hiring Director was laid off and all her reports were taken over by a newbie Director that coveted my hiring Director position and direct reports. I was saved through that layoff because the entire program, network management, and health plan were dependent on my skills, experiences, and the regulatory work I was doing. Six months after the layoffs I quit because the new Director was a mo--n, shovenist, and had no ethics and regards to the regulations. So, I knew I know longer perform my duties and there was no longer a growth and development path through his regime.
I know other Directors through this next round of layoffs are going by who they think are low performers, positions they can automate, and the vocal reports who are a thorn to their vision and team.
Higher salary is usually tenured staff though which su-ks, your loyal employees.
Disparate impact still matters, but fwiw, the people I know who got laid off were a mix of young and older people.
It’s not age discrimination if you are laying off someone who makes 20% more than a peer who is being retained. Generally they look for teams and/or higher priced employees whose work can “hopefully” be absorbed.