A guy at the office recently mentioned that rule 70 is one of the main determinants for who will be laid off, and for the life of me I can't figure out what that means.
What I found online makes no sense (what does estimating the number of years for a variable to double has to do with layoffs?)
Anybody here can enlighten me?
To the DD+ comment thats not necessarily the case. I saw two good looking ladies out of my office get walked out during BOEF.
If youre a DD+ you are all set!
Disgusted but not surprised. I will never trust Enbridge ever again.
You still have to be age 55 regardless of your factor to be eligible for retirement. In may case I was 54 with 33 years service (87 factor) and got layed-off. How that screwed me was I could not take the severance package as a lump sum and direct it to my retirement fund. Instead I had to take the continuance package which does not allow you to retire.
I know some of you will say that I was lucky to get anything at all, but think about it. I was with the company for 33 years and all they would have to do is wait 1 more year (a little bit less actually given I was to turn 55 in 2018) before I could have retired. But like many other posts have stated, I was not willing to conform and made my opinions known to senior management (although respectful). It cost me my retirement. I am now having to work a minimum of 10 more years and put my 2nd job income towards my retirement fund.
Enbridge frowns on top of Canada. Canada weds around Enbridge. When can an apple trail every echo? Enbridge consults the coat. Canada refunds Enbridge.
If you get laid off with 85, there is a much greater risk of lawsuit for age discrimination which is why the rule of 70 is so useful. Avoids litigation.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote, but no matter. Your number will probably get you on a short list if they are looking to get rid of people. Once you hit 70, you are a generally a big cost to the company. After that, other factors come into play.
Your number isn't the only factor, but it's one of them for sure.
85??? So that means you have to be 60 yrs old and you are with the company for 25 yrs then you are most likely to get laid off??? That is 60+25=85. If that is the case how come a lot of people not even half of that numbers got laid off? This doesn’t make sense. How about you are not close to your management, you don’t kiss a--, you can’t pull off an enormous amount of work like a slave without complaining, they don’t like your face or just plain they need to reduce costs qualify anyone for layoff?
To continue what I wrote below, 85 is the magic number for retirement. When you hit 70 you are a huge expense to the company and are a target for layoff. That's what happened to me.
Age + years of service would be my guess.
Im no expert and dont claim to know for sure but my instinct tells me that if you can add up your age with the number of years with Enbridge you will be better off if you are under 70. If you are over 70 then you are probably more likely to be laid off. Again, i dont know that but it makes sense.