Thread regarding Cisco Systems Inc. layoffs

It seems to me to be a requirement of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act that such a list be provided if they request you to sign a waiver.

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/owbpa.html

Yes, if they request that you sign a waiver, they must give you the list. You don't have to sign the waiver before getting the list. In fact, they must "advise [you] in writing to consult with an attorney prior to executing the agreement".

It seems to me to be a requirement of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act that such a list be provided if they request you to sign a waiver.

Are you serious that they listed the ages and job titles in the severance package?

My manager handed me my notice, a letter titled "U.S. Employee Notification Letter". Following it, there was another letter titled "U.S. RESTRUCTURING SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE". Then there was ATTACHMENT A, titled "OLDER WORKER BENEFIT PROTECTION ACT NOTICE" that included Attachment 1, which was the table listing the titles, ages, and number of people laid off as well as the titles, ages and number of people still there. However, my Attachment 1 only had info for my business unit, not all of Cisco. I had 45 days from my notification date to sign the severance package.

I hate to admit it, but I've been impacted by Cisco's '11 WFR and the '16 LR. Both times I got the attachment with ages (ii) eligibility factors for inclusion in that group; (iii) the time limits applicable to the Separation Agreement Benefits offer; (iv) the job titles and ages of all individuals to whom Cisco is offering Separation Agreement Benefits in exchange for a release of claims; and (v) the ages of all individuals to whom Cisco did not offer Separation Agreement Benefits in exchange for a release of claims but who were in the same job classifications or organizational unit as any individual covered in the group described in (iv). This information is provided in Attachment A of this Separation Agreement and is incorporated into this Separation Agreement.

Note that there is nothing about getting the info after signing. We didn't have any group meetings and they didn't bring in our state's Unemployment office. From what I could gather, we weren't eligible for unemployment benefits until our severance ran out.

I find it very strange that MA was treated differently than CA or NC.

@MiFxV48-5nay - funny, if you want more turnover in a company, you don't care about how old the employees are, you care about how long they've been employees. Charlie slipped up and spoke the truth about age in the statement, then covered it up with the turnover part.

@MiFxV48-1qtf. Charlie Giancarlo put out a statement (can't remember what year it was) where he stated that in 5 years the average age of Cisco employees had increased by 10 years and in his opinion this was a 'bad' thing. He came right out and said he wanted more turnover within the company.

@MiFxV48-2vow. Are you serious that they listed the ages and job titles in the severance package? I worked in Boxborough and my severance package only referenced that the ages of the people affected by the LR would only be made available if we signed the severance agreement first (i.e. signing away your ability to sue Cisco). After we were notified, the HR director held 2 meetings where they brought in people from the Massachusetts Unemployment office to explain how/when to file for unemployment benefits and explain other benefits available to unemployed. Everybody, in the meeting I attended were age 50+ (including the HR director who was also LR'ed after she did all the dirty work pertaining to the LR). In my package it said that the ages of the affected people would only be made available if we signed the severance agreement first.

c--tz

"How do you get rid of a highly compensated g12/13? Balance them out with a g6. The savings are too good to pass up. In the LR packages in SJ, there's a section at the back with all the titles and ages of the people recently LR'd. This set of pages is only provided to people > 40yrs old."

That exactly what I thought when I was LRd and looked at the "see we are not discriminating" section of the paperwork. I felt sorry for the sacrificial lambs needed for the numbers game to work in Cisco's favor.

That's pretty disgusting behaviour to be honest about it, but why should we be surprised? Morals and ethics are just words tossed about by some people in this organisation.

How do you get rid of a highly compensated g12/13? Balance them out with a g6. The savings are too good to pass up. In the LR packages in SJ, there's a section at the back with all the titles and ages of the people recently LR'd. This set of pages is only provided to people > 40yrs old.

believe me or not is up to you. Its an anonymous forum so people can post whatever and I agree its hard to verify. You may doubt the truth of my comment, but that doesn't change what I heard... this manager, a director for ~10 years, told me exactly this... that "age diversity" is a measurement.

I said I believed you that he said it. I said I didn't believe that its a documented or measured goal. I'd be happy to offer that manager good $ in return for the proof so that I could sue the heck out of Cisco for age discrimination.

What he omitted to you was that it was an "unspoken" measurement. And yes, I'm not naive enough to doubt there are unspoken and undocumented guidelines on how they measure performance and ratings so they can LR people.

would folks stop saying statements like this?

"In years past, LRs were based more on performance (bottom 10%)"

this is NOT true. i was LRd in Oct 2014 after 15 years of top core and even higher a few of them. in my last year I was put in the bottom 15% of core, not bottom 10%.

You're only proving what we're saying. Before 2014, and I'd say closer to 2010 or 11, the LR's were performance based. Now they're "cost" based. A manager justified LR'ing you by changing your performance from top core or higher to bottom 15. Most people, with 5, 10 or especially 15 years of proven performance don't just suddenly stop performing. Not without a good reason.

I had 3 yrs as a red badge where my manager worked a deal with my consulting company to pay me for a "special project" that basically amounted to a $1000 CAP award. Then I was hired and my mid-year performance review was great. Then s/he quits and I get a new manager. At year-end, with no warning, I'm in the bottom 10%. When I called the manager out on it and told him s/he s---ed as a manager because s/he didn't tell me that my performance was considered unacceptable before reviews came out so that I could address any shortcomings, suddenly I'm having weekly 1:1's and nothing I did based on the week before's 1:1 was "good enough" and my next mid-year review was that I was trending down to bottom 5%. Before I could receive my year-end review, I was LR'd. Back then, they announced the LR's 60 days before they happened, so I had my desk cleaned out the night my manager sent me my 1:1 meeting request.

If your performance review suddenly changes from great to poor, it's an excuse to terminate you. And it's not for "performance". Now it's all about cost (and age).

LRs were based more on performance (bottom 10%), regardless of discrimination format.

Maybe in 2001. By 2008 they were taking out whole groups at my site and they've lost top talent that way. The over 40 set get the list of titles and ages of those being laid off and they've been quick to point out the ages are largely 40+. Add this to the executive who many years ago stated the desired average age in engineering in an all hands and it's pretty clear they've been purging the old for essentially a decade. Since almost no employer will hire you without a background check, unless you can afford to both fight the entire legal force of of your employer (in no way limited to Cisco) and never work again you aren't going to sue your employer for age discrimination. Survival of the fittest: now brought to you by people who don't believe in evolution.

would folks stop saying statements like this?

"In years past, LRs were based more on performance (bottom 10%)"

this is NOT true. i was LRd in Oct 2014 after 15 years of top core and even higher a few of them. in my last year I was put in the bottom 15% of core, not bottom 10%.

@1kee.....of course Cisco would never document their age discrimination. But they also "supposedly" don't have performance reviews anymore......and behind the curtains they have the VPs/Dirs performing "9 block" rankings of employees, without the employee input, or the employee ever hearing about the 9 block result. Age+salary+9 block is what has axed the majority of the people in the last 12 months LRs. In years past, LRs were based more on performance (bottom 10%), regardless of discrimination format.

Age Diversity could well be something Cisco measures in the same way it measures race and s-x etc. but that is different from actively having a policy to hire and fire based on age.

It is nonsense to suggest Cisco has such a policy and even more nonsense to say they would document it. I would suggest your manager is a bit confused! I have heard HR state the average age of Cisco employees but its just a statement of fact not a statement of intent.

to @MiFxV48-1wjf ... believe me or not is up to you. Its an anonymous forum so people can post whatever and I agree its hard to verify. You may doubt the truth of my comment, but that doesn't change what I heard... this manager, a director for ~10 years, told me exactly this... that "age diversity" is a measurement.

@MiFxV48-1wjf , there is not a directive to sh.t can the old white males grade 11&12 over 45. However, We are encouraged to hire "early in career" people and job reqs rarely get released for roles above grade 8.....which is essentially a mandate not to hire experience, which makes it difficult for older grade 11 & 12 folks with great experience to find different jobs internally-especially if they get an LR letter. At the latest company meeting, it was remarked that we need to staff up with people that

look like our customers.....whatever that means. Complete muppets.

Another mgr told me improving "age diversity" is a measured goal for leaders... another name for getting rid of older costlier workers.

While I agree you may have been told that, I sincerely doubt it's validity. There's NO WAY Cisco would have a paper trail documenting their age discrimination against the "expensive" workers let go instead of the sub-par performing employees.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not doubting the reality of the goal, I just can't believe that it's actually measured and is a tracked goal. It has to be an undocumented "secret" goal that only discussed, never written.

Cisco would lose tons of money if those facts ever saw the light of day.

Lame. Take the package and leave.

Huh? The OP was clearly an ex-employee who had left. @pod indicated that "...it would have to be one hell of a pay raise in order to make up for the constant threat of LR." which means that they are gone too. So who are you recommending to take the package and leave? Besides, you don't really have much choice in leaving, only in taking the package offered or refusing the package and trying to take Cisco to arbitration due to the employment agreement you signed. The package was, in my opinion, too good to be worth giving up for the hope of more in arbitration or fighting the arbitration contract in court.

Cisco is now as lame as your response.

the day after my team LRed a bunch of senior people, my team opened up req for junior people. A transparent attempt to change the age mix and cost. Another mgr told me improving "age diversity" is a measured goal for leaders... another name for getting rid of older costlier workers.

Lame. Take the package and leave.

I think I got the same e-mail, if its for the RS position. In order for me to go back it would have to be one hell of a pay raise in order to make up for the constant threat of LR. It's almost like there are just two classes of contractors at Cisco now, just one has benefits.

hahaha. omg. how pathetic...