Thread regarding AT&T layoffs

Why No MVO?

What is the reasoning for not having an MVO? It costs the same, you get ride of more older workers, etc.

by
| 2349 views | | 15 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+15KKds1T

15 replies (most recent on top)

Instead of sweetening the pot to voluntarily leave, is the a reason the company should not freeze the pension like Verizon did in 2012? I don't mean locking new employees out of it, like we did in 2015. I mean a full stop on accrual of any additional value in all of the existing pension plans.

by
|
Post ID: @2tkv+15KKds1T

Att is clueless. Mvo needs to offer more than layoff. If they offer what vz did there will be many takers. But that will leave them with high performing mid career guys leave. People who are 60 and retirement age want to ride it out. They need to sweeten the pot for old guys to leave.

by
|
Post ID: @2upo+15KKds1T

MVO (Voluntary Offer) can be the only solution to avoid or minimize the mass layoff while Force Reduction is necessary for the whole telecom industry. July/2020 will be the Stevenson/Stankey legacy year in AT&T’s 135-year history to max instead of min layoff in This Historical COVID-19 Year. While Edward Whitacre retired in June/2007, AT&T announced a one-time increase to certain retiree pension annuity payments, an average increase of 3.2% by a group of retirees in April/2007 (per AT&T 2007 Annual Report - https://www.att.com/Investor/ATT_Annual/downloads/07_ATTar_FullFinalAR.pdf). AT&T leaders are less creative than the Verizon’s leaders. When VZ started FIOS in Sept/2005 with FTTH/Fiber, AT&T started U-Verse IPTV with twisted pair in June/2006, and didn’t really start FTTH build out until being forced by FCC for its DirecTV merge condition in 2015. However, AT&T did follow VZ’s Oct/2018 outsource to Infosys with its Sept/2019 outsource to Tech Mahindra. Wonder if AT&T will have a 4th Qtr MVO (max 52wk? instead of the cur 26wk) to catch up with VZ’s Sept/2018 voluntary offer which is 3wk pay for each NCS up to 60wk, with a successful 10.4K of 44K take rate = 23.6% - https://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-announces-results-voluntary-separation-offer. Not sure if Stankey and Bill Morrow will be smart enough with a minimal AT&T pride. Remember, 2011 is the telecom landscape turning point year while Stevenson/Stankey failed the T-Mobile merge with AT&T paying the $4B fine (imagine how much extra price promotion can be offered by T-Mobile with this kind of windfall money). AT&T employees will never forget 2011 is also the Stevenson/Stankey legacy year at AT&T 135-year’s history. You may want to compare the stock prices for both AT&T and T-Mobile since 12/19/2011.

by
|
Post ID: @1gbq+15KKds1T

This. The high performers are the first to jump on MVO because they have other options. Once the company is filled with people who have no other options, the company delivers deceptive garbage like 5Ge and HBOMax.

by
|
Post ID: @1rdb+15KKds1T

Yeah this time MVO not needed as others have said. The bean counters already ran the numbers and it's just more efficient to have a massive downsizing as that will appeal better to Wall St. And the bottom line

by
|
Post ID: @1fsq+15KKds1T

Actually, last round when they offered the MVO our group lost some of the younger high performing managers while less productive managers stayed. We even had few managers with more than 40 years service that didn’t take the offer. No MVO allows the company to take lowest ranked employees, highest paid employees, employees working in wrong location, employees close to pension eligibility, employees without a degree.... bottom line is they choose who goes

by
|
Post ID: @1kuj+15KKds1T

Enjoy your management title.
Bet it won't pay the bills.
I'll stay craft.....and go when I wish.3 yrs will give me 41.

by
|
Post ID: @1lrl+15KKds1T

If you really wanted to cut the company’s long term costs for healthcare, and you’re having one giant downsizing, one of the most draconian things to do would be to downsize both late- AND mid-career people, especially people just before they become eligible for retiree healthcare benefits. But mid-career people don’t take the MVO as often, so you have to do something else.

by
|
Post ID: @1dmv+15KKds1T

Also, MVO’s used to include an incentive that made it more worthwhile to take the MVO, rather than wait for a lay-off.

Now, and for the past several years, the MVO’s contain no incentive—you get the exact same package when you are laid-off, so the majority wait for the lay-off.

by
|
Post ID: @brz+15KKds1T

2+2

by
|
Post ID: @qht+15KKds1T

because you have 40-50-60 year old people doing nothing working from home. why would they leave.

by
|
Post ID: @nxh+15KKds1T

Yes, a MVO takes longer than a Surplus, but a surplus gives the 14 day kick in the pants a chance to go get on unemployment, and if MVO'd, you only get the severance and no opportunity to get on unemployment. So a Surplus can get you out faster, get your severance and then you can get on state welfare and add to the economic downturn

by
|
Post ID: @ufh+15KKds1T

There have been MVO’s— never enough takers, even by the oldest workers.

by
|
Post ID: @juc+15KKds1T

they can still give ee's the option to volunteer. The only thing we are volunteering to do is to take the package or not. Either way, we will still leave within 14 days. This is for management

by
|
Post ID: @ooa+15KKds1T

Because it takes longer than 14 days to process MVO. Layoffs can be done in 14 days and people are gone.

by
|
Post ID: @emf+15KKds1T

Post a reply

: