Thread regarding Enbridge Inc. layoffs

What was the formula, why so secretive?

If the layoff criteria was based on a formula such as "manager with no or few direct reports" = higher salary = efficient savings, why not disclose that? One reason is that it may eliminate good people because of where they fit in a demographic.

The other way is to have dept. heads choose but, that leaves it open to politics so you can terminate those that you don't like based on any ole prejudice. This would likely lead to illegal terminations which is why, my friends, there was a need for secrecy.

by
| 3951 views | | 9 replies (last March 23, 2017) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+MqbabmE

9 replies (most recent on top)

EK is the worst thing to happen to PSCM. Throwing good business practices aside, he turned that department into a mess and a big ole party for himself. My hope is that Enbridge wises up to his poor practices soon. They probably won't though.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1gih+MqbabmE

They will continue laying off people every year. AM need to get pay increase every year, he will get rid of people to get richer.

He calls it "building my future"

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1iuq+MqbabmE

EK is the real issue with PSCM. Why would someone who ruled his department like a tyrant be asked to stay on for months to help with the transition? That just gave him an open door to fire everyone he didn't like and who didn't bow to his every wish. Everyone was hoping the Enbridge folks would see through his smoke but I guess they didn't. One can only hope that whenever he lands a new job all of his buddies quit and follow him just like they did here. PSCM is a disaster. Now that they got rid of folks who actually worked and knew what was going on, it will be interesting to see how things work now.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1cty+MqbabmE

I got laid off. VP decision. I worked for Director. So glad to be out of there. I was skipping out of the office. They are so messed up.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1fhz+MqbabmE

The reason they wouldn't expose a formula is because none exists. You can't distill several months of decision to such a simplistic approach. It's a combination of a lot of things, including cost, redundancy, loss of org position, acknowledged talent, perceived compatibility with the new entity, adaptability... some people moved sideways, some up, and lots out.

Don't oversimplify. When you try to paint it in a single colour it's usually because you want to present a one-note charicature everybody can mindlessly hate. That's propaganda.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ncu+MqbabmE

Darn you're still here.... maybe that will change. FYI- It's laid off.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1hps+MqbabmE

Ethics? What ethics? We=ethics

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @tkn+MqbabmE

Only misdeeds must be done beyond the light of day

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @mal+MqbabmE

It seems as if they let VPs choose. A good example is The PSCM group where no ex BP people got layedoff because EK was saving his friends and the people he commutes with every morning. It also seems that political scores were being settled as very able and productive people were let go from PSCM. I'm still here and not a bitter person who got the boot. But ethics department need to look into the logic behind EK selections.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @jzl+MqbabmE

Post a reply

: