Were these based on performance or who is most expensive? Also, did management have any say or was this all HR?
8 replies (most recent on top)
"I do think there is more to the 'running the company into the ground' that may be tied to the current administration and plans for socialized medicine. KLs spouse has ties to the current government."
If you think that 1) socialized medicine will ever happen under either of the centrist-owned political parties in this country, 2) that reining in (but not ki-ling) price-gouging PBMs is literal socialism, or 3) that management thinks they can somehow profit using insider lobbyist knowledge from ki-ling a company to help the federal government take over private medical care: I have some NFTs to sell you that are JUST ABOUT to head to the moon.
This is purely the combination of bad economic winds, a bubbled stock market mad they can't forever make money, and a corporate structure riddled with consultants who don't actually know what to do.
based on $$'s. Lost a lot of top talent.
I would say that performance isn’t necessarily the reason people end up on the list. A lot of really good people were let go over the last few years. It is cost, political connections (if not political and successful, you are more at risk), age, role not understood or valued by senior leaders, constant changing strategies and plans (CVS = Change Very Soon), being close to retirement (55 and 10 years service or 60 with 5 years of service), etc. I do think there is more to the “running the company into the ground” that may be tied to the current administration and plans for socialized medicine. KLs spouse has ties to the current government.
if you work for ANY publicly traded company you need
12 mos of savings
constant resume revisions
full stop
Just a small correction. Sometimes these lists are just made directly at VP/AVP level without including the directors. They want to keep this thing a secret and so they keep it small without including directors ( or just a handful).
Sadly due to this a lot of people who might BS and manage up effectively get to stay while the silent doers might get the boot.
I always crack up when they "cut costs" by laying off employees. Granted, some make good money (not me), but there is a, what?, $2B deficit they are trying to recoup over the next two years and they decide to limit travel and do layoffs? Seriously? Karen Ly--h is running this place into the ground. There's been a revolving door with executives since she's been in charge, and it's not that she's great and getting rid of dead wood; it's dismal management.
Spot on, and "I know this probably comes as a shock so let me know if you need a moment before we proceed...."
You must be new here, but we all have to start somewhere. Some were performance based, but were there really 8000 poor performers let go in the last 14 months?
If you had to bail water from a sinking ship would you use a small bucket or a bigger bucket? Would you target younger workers with smaller salaries, less PTO and lower healthcare costs or would you target older workers with larger salaries, more PTO and larger healthcare costs?
HR only vetts the final lists to make sure the company isn't going to get sued and then they make sure all the paperwork says every single layoff was due to performance. Each VP gets a $ number. They cascade that number to their AVPs, Directors, etc. who generate the list. Then they compare the list to the target $$ and then those lists get combined. Then the scripts are created and then the FUN BEGINS. "I'm sorry I have to tell you that you are impacted by this reduction in force and you are being terminated....."