You are correct about IBM
Cisco is using the same playbook to reduce employee count down to 30K by focusing on just a few business units to try and remain relevant
If you Google, you will find many articles of IBM employees that won age discrimination lawsuits
14 replies (most recent on top)
The law basically says the employer can get rid of you for any legitimate reason. If you don't think they can manufacture a legitimate reason, you are wrong. I went through it at IBM in 2 very direct circumstances. The first instance I was working with a customer late. At 8PM a team of about 200 entered the building going cubical to cubical writing security violations. It was the day after everyone had to sign their code of conduct. They did this to not have to pay severance. What were people written up for mostly? Having any item not locked in the desk with a phone number on it without written permission from the company to have it in the open...recyclable soda cans. They use to have the customer service phone number on them. They did the 3 security violations and you are out. No severance, no 30-day notice, nothing. They didn't do it in mass either. They did it 2 or 3 a day/week so word didn't get out. The other instance was a bunch of new hires, early 20-somethings or late teenagers. The young lady in the office next to me so happy about being hired as a Senior Project Manager. I asked her who her manager was and the project she was hired for. The manager never existed before and the project never existed. About 200 people were hired into this "manager" for this "project". Right then, we knew a layoff was on its way. All 200 new hires were let go 3-weeks after being onboard to lower the average age of those laid off. Cheaper to pay 200 for 2 months than it was to deal with legalities of age discrimination.
Employees can submit claim against their employers based on an offer of voluntary retirement that was in fact involuntary retirement.
To rise to the level of constructive discharge, the offer must disguise the employer's intentions of getting rid of the employee based on his or her age
So, if the employee is offered early retirement with no view of what might be next, that’s totally legal? But if the offer is “take this, or who knows what might happen next month” Is unlawful? That’s pretty much what they did in 2011.
Voluntary retirement is permissible under the ADEA. Thus, employers are permitted to offer early retirement incentives to employees. The crucial question is whether the offer really is one of voluntary retirement or if the employer's offer is tantamount to forcing the employee to accept the offer.
Generally, if the only other alternative to retiring is one that would leave the employee worse off, then the offer of retirement may not be voluntary. For example, if the employee is faced with termination or accepting early retirement, or if the employee if fired after refusing to take early retirement, the retirement was not voluntary. Additionally, employers generally are not allowed to reduce an employee's benefits if they do not accept early retirement or once they reach a certain age.
Fact-If Cisco cannot guarantee that you will not be LR’d if you decline ER, then that is age discrimination
So according to initial post someone sent the ER offer would not be LR'd because this could definitely be construed as age discrimination?
As someone who actually practiced law before having a career change to get into engineerjng I'll answer this. The previous posters all right and wrong. Due to ADEA aka the Age Discrimination Employment Act employees over the age of 40 are legally protected. That's common knowledge to most people. Therfore, an employee cannot just fire John and Jane because they are 58 and 62 years old and make more than Jimmy and Susie fresh out of college graduates pulling in 30k each a year. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Employers know that. This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
The KEY for employers who over ER is to make it VOLUNTARY. That's exactly what Cisco did. Therefore, they aren't forcing anyone out the door but leaving it up to you if you want to quite or not. Perfectly legal.
Anyone try to challenge this in court and I will assure you that the judge will laugh you out of the court room.
Seems it's aligned with the social security age of 62.
It's absolutely age discrimination and would be an easy case to win ... if people actually organized a class action. But, most white collar types take the deal or keep their heads down. We are our own worst enemies.
If you are white male and born in the USA, yes, they are coming for you.
The first two times I was offered the ER, I was early 50s and did not take it.I did not let people know because I looked more like early 40s and didn’t want people to start discriminating against me die to age. Age discrimination was / is real at Cisco.
This time I’m 62 and I’m taking it. It is the perfect bridge to retirement and freedom from a company that has become way too political and really messed up.
Thank you Cisco, the third time was the charm!!!!!
in the ER info session today, there was a Q&A and no measures were taken to anonymize the people asking questions. The questions stopped quickly when someone asked "are you aware that you are totally breaching the confidence of the people asking questions", something to that effect. Basically a few people over 50 had their privacy violated, the very last thing HR should be doing now.
My attorney chuckled when he read ER available to age 50+
He said 50 is not retirement age and confirms it is age discrimination tactic
legal lioophole bigtech lobbied for