Thread regarding Honeywell International Inc. layoffs

Omg @2tac. When 90% of the people in a layoff are over 50, and out of the remaining 10% only 1 was 39, the rest were in their 40’s- yes this was in March this year- as a recent RIF’d 59 year old I have the proof that these stats are correct- they send us a full disclosure of the age demographics.

Yes by law ageism is defined as being specifically harassed or let go in reference to your age.

But if anyone thinks this is ‘ok’ by any means- to let a long time valued employee go- and it is because of age, no matter what words you want to whitewash it with- if you think this is ok you must be either part of the spineless management at Honeywell or under 40 and think you are valued.

Fact check. You’re not.

@eek2: unless your product is intrinsically simple, how would it ever be better a value proposition to jettison an experienced engineer for two new grads, unless maybe he naps all day? The only value in a fresh out is their ability to soak up knowledge from the graybeards and grow into a contributor 5+ years out. They actually drain the others' efficiency as well initially, due to the required baby sitting. Well run companies realize how to manage their knowledge continuum by keeping the correct ratio of old:young. HW of course, in their ever present chase for the making the quarter, RIFs the old guy too early and then throws the two newbies to the wolves. If you don't see that, you are as blind as the ALT.

@2eek. You are clearly still too 'green' to understand the dynamics of a successful business. Good luck in your short tenure at Honeywell! (But you may want to keep your ignorant views to yourself at work).

@2eek. To compare inanimate objects, like components, to peoples’ lives is awful. If you get laid off simply because you have been here over 20 years and make too much money- well, whose fault is that? I would have gladly taken a pay cut as an engineer age 60 then be tossed aside like a used up piece of garbage, no benefits and 5 years to figure how I’m going to get medical benefits for my spouse and myself until we can get Medicare. A 30+ stellar career down the drain. You think jobs are easy to get at 60 years old? You’re an idiot.

No one deserves to be treated as bad as Honeywell treats their long time loyal and hardworking employees. It’s humanly and morally wrong.

It’s def part of the big problem in the United States right now. I hope and pray it changes for upcoming generations or we are in huge trouble.

People like you 2eek- are part of the problem. I hope this happens to you someday- you will know how it feels and you will remember your a--hole attitude.

@2eek: You've heard of pensions right? These older workers were promised pensions based on years of service. The old "golden handcuffs" inducement to hang around. A pension is a mighty nice thing to have. Retirement medical nice too, but OK that's gone. Is it really a smart move to chuck the job you've been in for 20 years, 5 or 10 years short of a decent pension? You can maybe see how these older workers have been manipulated into staying? It would be foolish, if even feasible, for older workers promised a pension to ditch their jobs because they could 'see the handwriting on the wall'. Life isn't as simple as you make it out to be. These workers have given the best years of their career to their employee. Guess it OK by you to discard them. Good luck when you meet the same fate.

@2eek - we'll have to agree to disagree. I assume based on your views, you have no problem with U.S companies sending jobs overseas when they can find cheaper labor? I just believe that if a company is based in the U.S and benefits in any way from the U.S government, they do have an obligation to employ people in the U.S and pay fair wages regardless of a workers age. Public companies like Honeywell will do everything they can to deliver value for shareholders, I just think they have a social responsibility as well as long as derive any benefit from U.S taxpayers.

@2kjn - There shouldn't be any EEOC laws in the first place. People should be getting paid per the value they contribute. If you've worked 30-40 years and the company for which you work decides they'd get better value by laying you off so they can hire two new college grads are you saying that the company shouldn't be able to do that? You'd like to use the government to threaten companies to prevent them from being able to make those sorts of decisions?

Engineers rationalize the component costs of products all the time. If they can switch out one component for another at a lower cost while accepting potential quality or changeover costs why can't management do that with labor? Labor is an input cost to business just like widgets. Switching from the higher cost component could very well result in someone else losing their job at the vendor.

People should be free to sell their labor to whom they choose and employers should be free to employ & fire whom they choose.

@2tac- the "age card" as you refer to it has EEOC laws written to protect workers from people like you. I can only assume that you are in a management role and are not yet in that "age card" category. I believe that workers have to earn their spot no matter how old they are, but when companies target older employees as a way to reduce costs there needs to be some protection in place.

Ageism would be laying off people because of their age. If you had a group of coworkers all making about the same pay and only the older folks got canned, OK maybe you have something. I highly doubt that's the situation. This sounds like people trying to play the "age" card.

I think that's going to go as far as the people arguing for a "wear green day" and agitating for unionization of white collar jobs. To quote a favorite movie "Where you goin? Nowhere!"

Who makes significantly higher wages people that have been in the worforce for 5-10 years or 30-40 years? The purpose of a RIF is to reduce costs the most efficiently. Does it make sense to layoff 1 older person making more wages or 2 new hires making much less wages?

To say that it is "ageism" is idiotic. It is perfectly understandable business decisions. If you are over 50 working for Honeywell after everything that the company has been doing the past 5 years AND you don't have a plan in case you get RIF'd that is entirely your own fault.

It isn't anyone's responsibility to read the writing on the wall for you but your own. I'm sure it is awful to get laid off but take some personal responsibility for your own future.

85% of my RIF were over 50. You make too much (you know compared to MX, IND, CHN), if they want to know everything about how YOU do your job, run or wait for the door.

Reading all of this has to make anyone with title of manager very proud to say they work at honeywell.

You are not leadership, you are simply executing. If you were a leader, you would make changes from within.

You're dilusional and a sad excuse for someone that has responsibilities over those you fire or RIF.

If you think you are valued then leave now and come back as a contractor. Contractors get furloughed but the good ones are always back.

Wake up call!!! People over 50 take packages.

Blue blue skies nothing but blue skies heading my way. My point was anyone can get laid off at any age. I was willing, ready and able. Plan ahead! Job security is not the job you have it is the next job you can get.

cn1 -

What color is the sky in your world?

I was over 65 and did get laid off what world is cn1living in.

cn1: Over 50 people are subject to psychological abuse. Their reviews are phonied up, they are marked as under-performers and thrown in the elbow. No raises or bonuses for these vermin. Many of those thus treated value their mental health and leave on their own rather than to continue being subject to this kind of abuse. The lawyers are clever -- they've constructed an employee evaluation system that allows (so called) 'under-performance' to be documented. What chance does an employee have to prove that he isn't an under-performer and that the allegations of such aren't true? Wake up. Open your eyes. There is no such thing as 'early retirement' in the fiscal sense of things -- whatever retirement earned for years of service follows a formula. That's what you get, nothing more. And, newsflash, when you retire voluntarily you get no severance. If you volunteer for a RIF you would, but that is different, that's not retirement early or otherwise.

@cn1. That’s not really true. It might be, if affordable healthcare was offered for those over 50 but under 65. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

In the financial climate today, you need at least $1,000,000 minimum saved to retire at 65 and if you have any dependents- like a spouse- you need more.

To retire 15 years earlier than planned? Healthcare? You better have double that.

Over 50 people don’t GET laid off. They take early retirement and sign agreements to get a severance in return for early retirement.