Who do you thinks is making the call to cut certain employees? CSL's or RCL's?
10 replies (most recent on top)
Tenure is only considered at 5%
The more tenured people have learned how to conform, and they have become comfortable in their place in the company. They roll with the waves. It's like becoming apart of a joint venture and/or a family.
This is a reorginization, and everyone is already disconnected.
This will be all about the business at hand.
All things being equal, the more tenured person is the one who usually stays.
So you’re saying shorter tenured employees would get cut over longer tenured ones, even though their annual salary is much less for years to come. Short term savings I guess, but like a lot of decisions with this company it lacks a longer term vision.
Employee is tenured for 15 years then it is a 30 week severance payout. 5 year employee is only a 10 week severance payout. Which one has an immediate impact on the Director's budget? The decision is clear. Allstate is saving money, not necessarily talent in most cases. The attitude is, we can always find talent - especially in the current market.
I keep seeing tenure mentioned. When using a coin toss to decide, is shorter tenure or longer tenure better if you want to keep your job? I could see an argument for both sides. Shorter tenure would be first to go based on seniority. Longer tenure would be first to go because they cost more. I don't know.
RCL and CSL have no say in the matter. Their jobs are likely on the line, too.
Has anyone heard anything? With assessments coming Tuesday and now this purchase of national, I’m surprised it’s been silent.
They have no say in the decision making. The assessment results, you last 2 performance rating and your tenure will determine your fate.