What was the criteria for determining who got laid off? I suppose we can only speculate as those who know are not going to say anything. It was strange that some really good performers got laid off. I know guys that basically got at least an exceeds expectations every year for 10 years and they were let go. This suggests the selection was not performance based. If not performance based, was it even objective and who did the picking?
14 replies (most recent on top)
I like the definition of 'hr activists' - u and the adjacent activists, need to f*** off of this site and do u job internally by checking on the compatibility of your managers and H1 visa holders. Go there to exercise your human resource knowledge skills, I bet u would be surprised of what u can discover there. Unless though u already know what is happening as part of this shit anyway. here are the hard working American people who struggle to put a meal on the table for their families. For u guys this meal and house payment come easy. If there was justice, u would be in my place and I would be in yours except that I would not lick butts, this is not in my culture!!
Just read the entire conversation and agree with 67004. the math implies an 80% were lower performers and a 20% - high still meaning that the root case as presented by 67031 is poor performance. I was laid off this week by English-type folks, along with several good and hard working Americans that were excellent performers in 2013 as well. The people remained in offices are mostly useless but they pay. Based on sufficient evidence, I suggest that we were laid off because we did not bribe these benders. This was the point, but I have my reader to sign and keep this shit down. The only thing wanted to add that they retained in the office less productive people with highly doubtful credentials as themselves because most of them bribe. Agree with soem previous notes somewhere below that a serious internal investigation is needed whilst certain HR activists try to mask this issue down with some mysterious mathematical algorithms. Bull shit, go investigate corrupt n1s and n2s.
I don't believe anyone in our center was consulted, so N+1, N+2 and even 3's opinion didn't matter. I suspect in the field it was different, but in EMS we have so many useless levels of management they clearly decided to bypass most of them to speed things up. About 80% of those terminated were poor performers, but it was based entirely on 2013 yearly performance, since reviews for 2014 weren't done yet.
Of the 20% not poor performers, almost all of them had taken short term disability in the past year.
in our dept. most of the people that were laid off are US citizens and most of those who stay are on H1 or the like visas. perhaps the company is keen of paying for their US work visas. is there any logic in that speaking of algorithms?
It was not based on performance and could not have possibly been based on age. Nor would it be medical costs as in this case everyone with large families and medical problems would have been dismissed. There is no such an algorithm - just N1 + N2s' perceptions.
In EMS n+1 and n+2 were not consulted. The layoffs appear to be made by algorithm, taking salary, performance, medical cost, age, and visa status into account. One wonders if management were replaced by similar algorithms if anyone would notice.
Schlumberger, you are laying off wrong people! Check if the N+1s and N+2s have done any analyses justifying the selection criteria!
Je ne étais pas impliqué dans la boîte de dialogue (s) précédente, je voulais juste de noter: ils ne donnent pas une merde de toute façon pas en fonction de qui ils sont, même si il ya des holocaustes dans leurs bureaux. Ou, ils perdent leur emploi. La meilleure stratégie de gestion des risques consiste à externaliser ce risque. Ne est pas ce que vous avez accompli jusqu'à présent?
Se ils étaient vraiment française en HR, ils auraient au moins essayé d'enquêter sur les dessous de table qui sont venus à travers la la Manche mais je ne ai vu que les Indiens est il.
Je crois que le Monsieur Anonymous65707 est en faite Français.
Il dise qu'il faut être Français pour avoir une promotion, et que la plupart du resources humaines personnels sont Français Aussi.
65707 - are you French?
I tend to agree w. 65700 as much of the picking is being done now after the retirees left, i.e. by the acting management. No reason to investigate the retired folks.
I know some of the people who did the picking, were themselves let go via early retirement. It was about cutting a certain cost per department/ area, etc and hitting a figure of reduced payrole.
I've heard of some directors and managers that take bribes in different forms. It may well be the case as high performers let go and low performers stay. In this situation, their names may come up any time. It may be worth it to investigate them internally just in case... who knows?