From what I can see, a large number of laid off people have been with Schwab for 20+ years, were making big bucks (>$100K/year and some were making >$150K/yr), and were probably over the age of 50. This strategy is no different from previous Schwab layoffs in the last 20 years. You get rid of the high paid employees, the employees/managers that are not performing, and the positions that need to be absorbed into a reorg. This is a normal management process in most big companies. Trimming off the top has the biggest impact on cost savings. Layoffs are always painful for those impacted and even for those that stay. The morale takes a big hit, but it does recover. You will feel better after the bonuses are handed out next March. I remember the years when there was no bonus and no yearly COL raises. Not sure that there is any other way to do it. Trimming off the top creates a lot of new open positions for the career advancement of younger employees. In most cases, the impacted employees end up with better jobs - but maybe not right away. If you are still employed and are making the big bucks, then I hope you are putting away some of the dollars to cover layoffs, job transfers, health issues, and retirement. I know a lot of people that make big bucks and they spend every dime of it and then some. I agree - the company is not like it was when Chuck was CEO and America is also not like it was 30 years ago.
15 replies (most recent on top)
After over 33 years with another global financial firm, I was laid off last year. Most of my level on the east coast was wiped out. Still unemployed....
Bettinger should have been laid off. He cut fees thinking investor would bring tons of money to schwab then Schwab would make a k–ling when rates rise.
Bettinger is not a market GUY so he could not see the simple fact rates will not normalize with other parts of the world at Negative and the US debt in the 20 trillion plus range. Rates cant go up.
Fire Bettinger and save 13 million a year.
The statement that was specifically made was: "the new people coming in to the Firm to command way more money than the tenured folks here." Implying that new hires make more than someone working for the company say 10 years or more. That simply isn't true. I doubt that you have been with that company that long or was at the top your pay range, so using your situation as an example isn't what I am referring to.
Sorry you got laid off; if an analyst hired was making more money than you (and unless you have the title of Senior Analyst, it really doesn't matter you were doing the same work as far as salary goes), then maybe you should have taken that as a sign.
Hmm, I don't blame people being hired to ask for a more salary, wouldn't you? But most of the mgr's I've known will hire in people under the role salary limit where they can get at least a couple (3 or 4) salary incensements before hitting the limit on the role level. That being said, someone we hired actually did come in with a higher pay than me, and I'd been in the role for a few years, was just an analyst, but I was doing a senior analyst job... So to say that post was blatantly false, is actually false. It's normal business to say hire a grade 56 in with a higher salary than when promoting a grade 54 to a 56. Now if someone stuck around for 10+ yrs as a grade 54, promoted to a 56 and stayed for another 10+ yrs, I'd agree with you.
My opinion, they let go, I was one of them, of the people who were willing not to be yes-man and just agree with anything and everything they were thinking. What happens to a company with just a lot of 'yes-men'.... hope the leaders are right... but if they had been, then there wouldn't have been a need to let people go... I hope the best for my friends at the company, and I hope the best for Schwab, I just don't see it really being good for them since they got a rid of a lot of really, really smart people...
"The new people coming in to the Firm to command way more money than the tenured folks here."
This statement is blatantly false. Each position has a salary range. A new person is never hired at the top of the salary range–otherwise, there would be no room to advance. Those who have worked for Schwab for 20+ years are going to be at the top of the pay range and are naturally going to be older.
" I never commented on an age to lay off. I was merely referring to your statement about them laying off older people for younger people to advance. And I'm only responsible for what I say, not how you understand it."
First of all, I am not the one who made that statement. Secondly, those who have been with the company the longest are naturally going to be older. To automatically assume its "blatant age discrimination" is jumping to conclusions and hard to prove since there are people with the company who are ancient and have never been laid off.
@118aRI8S-1dac Pursuant to the federal Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) each employee aged 40+ that was laid off is entitled to list of titles and ages; but, the list is only specific to the "decisional unit" (your SVP). This doesn't show a complete picture of aged 40+ employees that were laid off.
HR or whoever handled this layoff did a lousy job, imo. No one (or many that I knew) were escorted out of the building and not permitted to go back to their desks. Some had prepared and had emails ready to say goodbye, but they were not allowed to have access to email or to say goodbye to coworkers. This one s—ed badly. Unfortunately, I was not laid off. Why wouldn't they allow for volunteers?
I would love to see age #s published.
@118aRI8S-poc Yes, HR has experience but they're not foolproof. Can't name names on here, but google an employee in 2010 who won 1.8 million dollars (note not age related) - they conducted an "inefficient HR investigation"
Schwab can get rid of people for any reason (in a right to work state) as long as it is not discrimination. HR's main purpose is to keep Schwab from getting sued. They are generally not there to help the employee. Schwab HR has years of experience in doing layoffs. The first one was back in 1995, So it may look like discrimination to us, but HR has their ducks in a row. My guess (I have never seen any official docs) is that the people were laid off because: job no longer needed, overlap of job functions, job needed to be in a different geographic location, job needed to be downgraded to a lower level, employee performance was below average, etc.
@118aRI8S-aqc "oh so do you think they should layoff people who are in their 30’s and have been with the company 20 years and started when they were 10?" I never commented on an age to lay off. I was merely referring to your statement about them laying off older people for younger people to advance. And I'm only responsible for what I say, not how you understand it.
I am not in HR. While it may look like age discrimination, from a legal standpoint, it is not. Lawyers will not take those kind of cases - no proof. See if you can find anyone that has won an age discrimination in the last 20 years against Schwab. The tenured folks are close or at the top of the salary range for their grade level. New employees are not being hired in at the top of the salary ranges. It is true that you can leave the company, if you are below mid level in the salary range, and come back and get a higher salary, I have seen that happen a number of times. From a salary standpoint, it is very hard for new employees to get more money other than the yearly COL raises or to get promoted to another position. In place promotions are mostly a thing of the past. In the past, I have seen the yearly "merit increase" be as much as 5 to 10%. When is the last time you saw that much of a COL. The older higher paid employees got to the high salary levels mostly because of the high yearly "merit increases" and salary adjustments. I am in agreement that there is age discrimination across America and that older Americans are generally not valued for their years of experience and expertise. But that is life.
“ I hope you're not in HR - these comments scream blatant age discrimination. “ oh so do you think they should layoff people who are in their 30’s and have been with the company 20 years and started when they were 10? Think about the logic of your statement and try again.
@118aRI8S "large number of people laid off...were over the age of 50" "Trimming off the top creates a lot of new open positions for the career advancement of younger employees." I hope you're not in HR - these comments scream blatant age discrimination. Not true about saving money, the new people coming in to the Firm to command way more money than the tenured folks here. Everyone knows the longer you're here the less you will make over time. The only way to make money is to leave and come back or better yet go somewhere else and never come back.