Thread regarding Thomson Reuters layoffs

Ageism was a factor in the latest layoff

It would appear that ageism was a factor in the latest cull. Many corporates proceed with layoffs knowing that bringing lawsuits takes money and is well out of reach of the average joe, especially older workers who often not in a position to fight back. These corporates have very deep pockets. It's all about probability, risk and who holds the balance of power. Staff are considered expendable. As to why many loyal and high performing employees were shed in the latest round, it's all about management doing all they can to protect themselves, even if it calls for doing irrational things. If there's some consolation from all of this, it's knowing that what goes around, comes around. Corporates also seem to forget, that people who are laid off tell other people what such and such a company has done to them and that they are a ** company to work for. Word of mouth spreads quickly. This must affect have an effect on recruitment.

Originally posted by @3nol+144PQFZm.

by
| 1982 views | | 5 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+148GnM40

5 replies (most recent on top)

Reference post: @aig+148GnM40

I agree, an external legal group/HR team should be added to oversee how are being managed .

I left in 2017. Most of the gossip, rumours came from HR. They were implicit in talking about stuff/individuals that should have been kept confidential.

HR's handling was found wanting.

I had very little confidence in HR during the process and they offered very little help. I was glad just to get out. Fortunately, the market was a bit more buoyant then.

by
|
Post ID: @guyl+148GnM40

Agree with all written here. I too was laid off. For me, what really got me was how the group I was part of to be laid off was treated, especially on our last day. Pretty much ignored. Colleagues we had worked with for years kept their distance. Very few people had the decency to wish us well for the future, or say something simple like its been nice working with you (even if they didn't mean it). As for the company saying your your job was now going to be done overseas; that you were now "surplus to requirements", and then expecting you to spend your remaining time writing documentation and training your replacement - I'll let you be the judge of that. I liken that to rubbing your nose in .... . The work still needed to be done, but the only difference was it was going to be done by a cheap source of labor. From what I've seen of the latest output, when it actually does go out to customers (and that hasn't been very often), they're the losers.

by
|
Post ID: @5qvd+148GnM40

I was laid off in 2018 after almost 30 years with the company and neither then nor now have I been able to understand how some very intelligent people in management fail to grasp a very simple point. If you terminate a large group of older employees with the most knowledge of subject matter and of the business, you will save money in the short run. That's just basic bookkeeping–they earn relatively higher salaries. But later when the quality of the content begins to decline (and it will) and customers desert (and they will), there will be more cuts, and further decline in quality, and on and on, until you're left with a skeleton crew doing their best to just get the products out the door. It's not that they don't care about the quality–they simply don't have the time or resources to do it the way that it should be done, the way that it used to be done as a matter of routine.

by
|
Post ID: @5ldo+148GnM40

I agree, except that many contractors are former employees who were laid off and had to do side gigs waiting for the necessary six month period to qualify as contractors. when this happens, the company benefits from their institutional experience and wisdom without paying any benefits. I know people are desperate for a job after a layoff, but don't work for the enemy.

by
|
Post ID: @oap+148GnM40

I couldn't agree any more with the fact that TR is getting rid of people based on age, and I will take it a step further, mainly because they earn more money. It's been going on for years and years but everyone just bites the bullet and takes the severance. The last couple of rounds have made little to no sense, the reasons are getting weaker each time. If TR really wanted to dig into this, they should look at the last couple of RIF's or "layoffs" and have an outside HR or Legal group discern whether this is fair and just. Right now legal approves these on a case by case basis I believe, this way they don't see the pattern or behavior that goes behind it. They don't even do exit interviews with the impacted employees and basically keep them all at arms length.

by
|
Post ID: @aig+148GnM40

Post a reply

: