Thread regarding Allstate Corp. layoffs

A company can take exempt employees and make them non-exempt, the stipulation is that everyone in that position must be moved to non-exempt per previous courts rulings, so if there are 6 teams doing the same job, they cannot leave 3 exempt and make 3 non-exempt.

That is their game. Put tenured employees into roles they don't want and in many cases are overly skilled for. Push them to the point of frustration that they quit the undesirable role on their own. They just lost severance and unemployment (in most states) by voluntarily leaving and the company is off the hook.

"You're in Good Hands"

I hope these folks were told what it’s like to work in a call center especially if these are tenured folks that have never worked in a call center environment. Welcome to being a number.

I understand that, but are these claims peers exempt licensed adjuster making 50-60k a year being switched to an call center position, or are these claims peers basically already non exempt call center people who will just now be handling policy changes and payment updates instead of first notice of loss or claims question calls.

THAT is where the difference comes in...

Well we are told that some of our claims peers will be moving to CCC service so if that is the case then people need to look into lawyer-ing up because they are doing what you are saying they cannot. It is already in the process of being. done. Something tells me that the company has their legal ducks in a row and knows what they can and can't do...either that or they just don't give a flip and are daring people to challenge it. This company does a heck of a lot that people say they "can't do". so either the company is reckless, people don't know what they are talking about, or the company is using legal loopholes to get away with it.

This was in one of the other topics and seems to fit here so I copied it, hope the OP of this info doesn't mind.

People keep talking about being moved from one job to another and how it can affect their severance, the company cannot just move you into a new job, per the severance manual the official word is reclassify, that is important because that term has protections for both the employee and Allstate.

In order to reclassify a person into a new position they have to show that the position the person is being reclassified into relates to what they were doing before or that the job they were originally hired to do has changed over time.

An example is a person is hired to be in an HR role supporting claims, agents, regional employees, etc.... then some of those duties are moved away over times and now the person is just supporting agents, that persons job can be reclassified, the persons job is still HR but the scope has changed over time.

What cannot happen is to take that same HR person and just move them to answering phones in the CCC, there is not a clear path that can be justified for that job reclassification. There are several lawsuits that have been filed and won by the employees when the proper procedure is not followed.

Expect to see and hear about those with 9.8% pay reduction and a Hell of a lot more stress in their new roles.

@wpj+164ahtCV I appreciate the input regarding Type III Severance. I was understanding it similarly.

One exception on Type III severance. If you moved to lower paying position and loose more than 10% of your pay then you can decline the position and still be eligible

Option 1 is really the only one that sounds acceptable at this point.

The issue is we have zero choice at taking the lay off and severance.

1-We either get laid off all together with severance if over 1 year service time.
2-We get moved to another role at potentially a lower pay band and accept it.
3-We get moved to another role at potentially a lower pay band and reject it quitting by our choice and absolving the company of all severance and unemployment responsibilities.
4-We get laid off, not moved to another role, and apply for another position within the company and get hired for that new position and we in turn get no severance as we continue as an employee of the company.
5-We are not impacted and business as usual even if we would have rather been laid off.

We are at the mercy of our Allstate Lords.

Yes, single no kids.

Do you have family. If I was single I would agree to prefer the layoff.

On moving a person to a new job the answer is actually yes and no, it depends on your current job description and the other job description, if the "new" job description has over 50% the same as the "old" job description it is legal to do as it isn't considered a new job, this is how people get put in jobs without applying and seen it a few times. If the "new" job description has less than 50% in common with the "old" job then they cannot do that, that is why it is important to know what your job description is.

Pay is an interesting one as well, seen people be moved to lower positions and are paid not at the top of the new band but over the new band, in some cases 20K over their new band position.

To the other poster, I would 100% rather by laid off than put into a call center role with lower pay.

At least with a lay off I will get a severance(possibly), unemployment, my vacation days cashed out, and time to look for a better job.

The company can actually place you into and lower your pay by as many as 3 pay bands but you receive the max of the third pay band down. This is rarely done but considering the scope of this restructuring It seems to be something that will take place.

I think it’s the job that they dump you in such as call center

I think it would be wise if you get selected for an assessment, to take it, and do your best with it. Use the company's time and answer the questions to the best of your ability. Don't worry about how it is graded by 'the experts'. Just don't FAIL TO TAKE IT. Failing to take it could negate your entitlement to severance.

I ~think~ not everyone will get assessments. I ~think~ that still means those who don't get one could still be let go, or you could be safe, or you could be put into another role. I suspect some roles may not be assessed and terminated altogether, and I ~think~ in cases like that, severance payments are owed. (This paragraph is all me speculating, so take it for what you will. I'm not in any high up position. I make less than 50k a year. Ugh.)

Also, I want to thank anyone else on this website that has tried to share legit info. Your work does not go unnoticed!

Hang in there, gang.

Being reassigned illegal. Come on. I believe the company can also decrease the salary by up to 10%.

My guess, most people would prefer to be reassigned rather then laid off. I surely would. The prospects of finding a new job are pretty slim. And unemployment is not the solution, p;aying your own medical ins, etc. Put me into another role any day.

"I think the problem comes in being moved to a job that you don’t want instead of having the choice to be laid off. Some employees just want to be able to get unemployment."

That is likely the game the company is playing. They still offer you a job. You refuse the assignment and leave voluntarily. The company is off the hook for severance and even unemployment in most states.

Many say illegal. It is not but it is highly unethical and disrespectful. Kind of like their mass stock buybacks they did.

These people are slimeballs.

I think the problem comes in being moved to a job that you don’t want instead of having the choice to be laid off. Some employees just want to be able to get unemployment.

Many people are going to get screwed in multiple ways through this RIF. SMH.

I am sure it has a "pass" or "fail" in TPTB's eyes. Passing means you are retained, failling means you are not retained and laid off. There are surely consequences for blatant sabatoge of yourself on the assessment to try to get a "voluntary lay off" considering the company has been very vocal about being against voluntary lay offs for this process.

I think some reading comprehension skills are struggling here. The OP clearly stated in the comments that if the employee refuses or fails TO COMPLETE the assessment they're ineligible for severance. That does not mean that if you take the assessment and don't "pass" you're not getting severance. It means if you don't take it you're not getting severance. It's not that scandalous. Just take it if asked and you won't need to worry about it.

The assessment we are taking has no pass or fail it is just gives what skills we are better at than others, there are no right or wrong answers, unless you can't figure out the last piece of the assessment you either succeed or you don't.

The manual doesn't say fail the assessment, it says fails to complete, so as long as you complete it you are good, you could have no skills the company needs but you still competed the assessment.

Now if you start and then stop in the middle of the assessment you may as well not even started it.

In fairness this is merely speculation. I must admit it does not look at all good but we will need to see how it all plays out. If it play out as I fear I think Allstate will have their legal hands full.

I assumed an assessment was just a high or low score with regard to your peers not a pass or fail.

This should be reported to media. This is beyond unethical. How can TW live with himself?

It would seem that not taking or refusing the assessment would be considered outright terminated/fired and no severance and no unemployment potentially. There seems to be vague wording that would allow a "failed" but completed assessment to be considered a termination/fired with no severance as well. I would assume if the "failed" assessment answers and information were a blatant attempt to "fail" or "sabatoge" yourself on purpose in order to get laid off for a severance package that they would consider that disqualification. However that would be a very slippery slope for Allstate to tread.

So I f you fail or decline the assessment, would you be considered fired or laid off?

I assume if roles are being eliminated altogether and no assessment done then this has no bearing on severance for outright laid off persons.

Seems the assessments are in a way forced acceptance of being kept in a role instead of being laid off if you are "decided" by the assessment process to be kept on as an employee.

What were the changes?

So if one refuses to or fails to complete the administered assessment as directed within the required time frame they surrender their rights to severance.

Yep, that was posted here several times and people that posted were called "trolls". This place can be accurate with valid information after all.

A nickle's worth of free advice....don't accuse people of being trolls just because you feel opposed to or not in agreement with information provided. Learn what a troll is.

Listed under conditions of ineligibility for Type I or Type III severance pay:

Section G: The eligible employee fails to complete any skills assessment administered by or on behalf of an employer in connection with the talent selection process for a reduction in work force

If a person voluntarily quits or resigns the company owes you nothing and in most states voluntary resignation disqualifies you from getting unemployment.

So you wouldn’t be considered laid off, if you leave ? So no unemployment ?

I heard that assessment results would impact severance and reported it here a few weeks ago. Of course I got blasted for it by those who thought they know it all. This company will go to no ends to keep from paying anything they can even if it means hurting the people that have been loyal to them. This is a sad state of affairs.

The thing I am seeing and hearing more and more are the moving of people to other departments and roles which was taboo before. Seeing that here and through other Allstaters outside of here. Seems like they are going to do everything they can to avoid paying out severance and getting something for their money. If they are going to "pay" you they want something in return even if it means sticking you in a position that you don't want and pushing you to quit voluntarily so they don't have to pay severance or even unemployment. I am seeing way too much here and directly from people that this seems to be a new ploy and practice. Sad thing is this company is big enough to wiggle it through any legal loophole to screw us and won't bat an eye. If I get let go and get any kind of severance I'll be surprised with the way things are being changed and the way this whole process is being handled.

The new edit of the plan mentions assessments as part of severance eligibility. Read up, folks!

The crazy thing is Wilson's layoff remark during the June 11th Town Hall. Why would he get the ball rolling then if all this other stuff is still being finalized. Was it a mistake? I can't wrap my head around it & the way all of this has been handled. Very 3rd rate all around.