Listen people, based on the consulting company recommendations, it was then based on pay/time in position. I am 40, not old enough to be a lawsuit risk, and was in my department a long time and made a lot of money. Those were the parameters. We all know really great performers and really poor performers (not all of them) were let go, so it is not about performance. Some people who are much younger and weren't with the company a long time were let go solely to mitigate age discrimination and time in position lawsuits. No, the consulting company did not know actual people. I would stop trying to figure this out because it has already been made clear - performance doesn't mean anything, and if you get too many promotions and make too much, you're out. If you're cool with that, then carry on and support Target. If you're not, get your resume together and start looking.
5 replies (most recent on top)
What? 40 is a protected class. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm Rethink your statement. Also, in my department, if you had the same title, you were booted based on seniority.
Yes, this analysis is right on.
Used to be you need to go up "or" Target would coach you out. Now it will be up "and" out based on making too much if there are cheaper millennials to fill role.
I find it incredibly sad and outrageous that the criteria is essentially driven by fear of being sued. Whoever bought into that strategy took his "eye off the ball". If this is correct, it severely damages Target in so many ways. First, laying off great employees is a significant brain drain. Second, doing in this manner makes reviews meaningless. Why would anyone care about reviews when it means nothing in layoffs. And finally, you just told your employees that it doesn't matter what kind of employee you are because management will fire people based on the fear of a few lawsuits. I fear that this is the beginning of darker days at Target.
RIGHT ON TARGET! No pun intended.....but this is spot on!