Sure anyone can apply for anything but you won’t get hired....unless you are well connected.
SAP has imposed a 2 year wait for all impacted before then can be hired (even as a c-user). In 2015, it was a 1 year wait.
If it truly was the roles/jobs being eliminated then why is there a 2 year moratorium on re-hiring the people? Obviously, HR does not advertise this but layoffs are flagged in the system.
Made into a thread from @YD2ARws-pff for info.
Really glad to hear that the last poster was able to negotiate and got his old job back at the same grade level with a salary increase - well done Sir!! All the shenangians that took place to "fill" his position proves that management does not know what they are doing - they are clueless and do not value the work and responsibilities of the current employee. They did not speak up to support the employee and justify his position. This is one of the key issues here - the wrong employees are being laid off because management made the wrong decisions!!
In most cases, you are given 1 month to look for an internal position before the deadline (usually 1 month after your notification date). If you don't have any solid offers on the table before the deadline, you'll told to get ready to leave and you are done!! In some cases, you might be given a short extension so you can complete the interview process for a job you'd applied for.
I agree that the 2 year wait period is designed to prevent people from double dipping like the good old days (take the package then come back as a consultant with a much higher rate doing the same job). You have to keep in mind that the majority of the folks that's been laid off was not by choice, they were s*rewed because his/her manager made the wrong decision. Once you are on the outside, the chances of coming back is very slim - unless you are doing sales then you can come back any time you want.
Good luck to you all!
If there is any 1-2 year rule, it's probably to prevent people from taking the money and running. I had 7 years tenure at SAP before my position was deemed no longer relevant (despite bringing more people over on visa for rotation and hiring a new position at T2 when I was at T3). I had no trouble getting in touch with a recruiter, interviewed, and offer formally extended the week of March 4th (thankfully retaining my global grade and getting a slight increase in salary).
If I had left SAP, I would have received three and a half months of pay in severance, plus the COBRA payout. Because I stayed, I received none of that. I think it's to act as a punishing disincentive for those that would briefly leave for another position externally, and then try to get back within SAP.
HR @ SAP is a complete gong show! They should get rid of the useless and overpaid directors - that should save a big chunk of money so they don't have to lay off some of the employees that are doing the real work. Everyone that's been around for awhile knows that HR is a shady operation and operated based on nepotism - individuals are getting promotions and appointments without any proof of solid performance. Case in point - there is a global HR director at C*ncur that was appointed to the position after she quit SAP as an HRBP and came back.
As for useless line managers, there are plenty within SAP. They are protected by his/her manager because they don't want to lose the headcount and rock the boat too much. They will continue to milk the system for years and years without having to do much. With a few nudge nudge (wink wink), everyone is happy at the end of the day with a nice pay cheque.
HR@ SAP. Unfortunately, some of the HR people who have come from other acquisitions are absolute nuts and sycophants. Completely from a different culture. First, these people must be fired.
And Line managers? I know my Line manager has been doing the same for the last 20 years and what value are these people addiing?
Who wants to work anymore for a company that puts you redundancy come on....
It would stop key staff, who know they are key, taking voluntary redundancy and then wanting to be hired back, perhaps as contractors on a much higher rate. Perhaps it happened in the past and that's why the policy exists. It might also apply to those who resign.
I am sure HR has consulted with legal to make sure they can impose this restriction. I wonder if this is a common practice at other companies. I guess this is a way of protecting themselves from their mistakes of laying off the wrong people for the wrong reasons? What do you think? Please comment.