Heard from people who volunteered but we're told no. Why don't they let them go and let the people who want to keep a job, keep it. There doesn't seem to a rhyme or reason. Some old some young wanting out.
Is there a legal gov. reason?
Something else?
Must be some reasoning.
Any ideas??
If your hair is grey they want you to retire. These are financial decisions. I have a feeling the cost of laying off a worker is a variable, How much pension you would get (if any), if it was lump only or annuity, your salary, how much severance you would get, maybe even estimating how likely the person is to retire. Plenty of folks I knew volunteered 2-3 times and eventually retired. But I must say, in general the age is high, 50+, from what I saw in my experience.
If your hair is grey, they'll encourage you to volunteer. Just subtle hints, like throwing you in the elbow. Just saying.
I heard denying a volunteer is by job not the individual. So if an ME at Engines is denied, all with same job will be. Hon reason for denial that the job is necessary/important, not that a person is so good they cant let him/her go. I have heard many volunteers get denied.
Also have to be careful due to potential age discrimination issues.
So is backfill for a volunteer rule a Honeywell or Gov. rule?
I would hope a volunteer could enable a dept. to move people around unless the gov. doesn't view it that way??
Crazy to have people who need a job to support a family get laid off over someone who is willing to leave
I was told that since HON doesn't (can't) backfill a RIF position for one year, any volunteer in a position that HON would like to keep will be denied. It has less to do with keeping the person and more to do with keeping the position.
The answer is pretty simple:
It saves a lot of money if someone who is known to be fed up actually just plain quits, as then there is no severance cost for that person.