Thread regarding Thomson Reuters layoffs

Criteria used for latest round of layoffs?

Just wondering whether anyone out there ever learned the actual criteria TR used to select people for being laid off in the latest round? I saw some really good people laid off - makes me wonder how they decided who was to go.

by
| 2624 views | | 11 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+13d3VIEu

11 replies (most recent on top)

I seriously doubt the company would tell a laid off employee WHY he ir she was laid off. As someone involved in the process (not my choice), there is not one reason an individual is chosen. It could be location, failing product, a nonperforming employee or something else.

by
|
Post ID: @slqe+13d3VIEu

After reading all of the comments for this thread, it's interesting to see that no one came back with any specifics actually given to them by the company as to how and why they were selected to be laid off.

Can I suggest that for the next round of layoffs, whenever that may be, that those selected to be laid off ask the company how they came to be selected as candidates. Given that a person's job/income is at stake, this is not "nice to know" superfluous information, but information that people are entitled to and which has a direct affect on their futures.

by
|
Post ID: @rqqs+13d3VIEu

I don't think we are rating the managers anymore, are we?

by
|
Post ID: @mmdb+13d3VIEu

I suspect the first port of call for potential layoff candidates would start with the annual company survey - you know the ones where you are “encouraged” to give candid feedback. Don’t worry though because its all anonymous.

Then there are those annual surveys where you are asked to rate your manager and give feedback on them. Don’t get me going.

by
|
Post ID: @jvcn+13d3VIEu

Having read the nearly 1000 views for this posting, it’s somewhat concerning that no one has actually come back with specifics re criteria for layoffs, ie the company gave me the following selection criteria for layoffs. This begs the question what criteria did the company actually use? Was each division just told they have to shed x employees and go to it? It makes one wonder whether some layoffs were the result of managers who had a beef with one or some of their direct reports and this was an opportunity to get rid of them, or whether a fair and uniform set of criteria was applied in each division, whether it be in the US, South America or the UK. I would have thought that seeing so many employees’ livelihoods were affected the company could have provided with a bit more information.

by
|
Post ID: @eqyv+13d3VIEu

To the person who was impacted in November, what segment where you in? In ours it was mainly 50+ yr old folks who were forced out, but all were "encouraged" to apply for other roles. The standard line is that they want to keep as much talent within the company, which is a farce, they just have to say it. Many, not all, of the senior leaders are in over their heads, and it's sad this isn't recognized, even after they missed numbers by a mile. This goes to show it really isn't about the value your bring rather how you play the game.

by
|
Post ID: @epkf+13d3VIEu

One comment suggests those being laid off are Male and over 50.
Next post suggests those being kept are Male and middle aged.

by
|
Post ID: @dztz+13d3VIEu

I was part of the november lay offs. My department was asked to reapply. They decided not to offer me a job in their "new" structure. They sent me the age break downs of who was selected for lay offs and who got reoffered. I know everyone in my department, and they only rehired older white males.They totally get away with it because those rehired are absorbed into a different team that does have women, although i believe no minorities.

by
|
Post ID: @cjcc+13d3VIEu

Many people laid off would appear to be aged 50+, and predominantly male. This would tend to suggest selection criteria with a very narrow focus. I agree with the comment " If they want you out they will come up with a reason." If that has indeed been the case, that's really sad!

by
|
Post ID: @2fhn+13d3VIEu

I think they play the location strategy game and swear to it, however I think there is more to it. If they want you out they will come up with a reason. If you look back at the past few years, it typically impacts higher paid people and then a number of people that fall under them under the guise of "location" or "job elimination". If you really a bit more closely at it, they then hire a very similar role and a much lower cost and/or level. One things that if fairly certain is that if your boss wants to keep you, they won't stress the location thing. Sadly the organization really doesn't value people and performance as they should, loyalty seems to be out the window.

by
|
Post ID: @1frl+13d3VIEu

I believe many are based on location strategy. The company is closing sites and relocating roles in locations with cheaper labor or in larger sites with co-located teams, ie Eagan and Carrollton.

by
|
Post ID: @rsh+13d3VIEu

Post a reply

: