Thread regarding AstraZeneca layoffs

This makes no sense at all

If the goal was to get rid of some of the best people, than this layoff is a huge success. What in the world did they use as a criteria for determining who to let go? And why are people who've been here for a year, two at the most still here when some of the company veterans with the most experience have been shown the door?

by
| 2236 views | | 6 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+18dXSeis

6 replies (most recent on top)

It’s all money. Younger employees cost less. I was laid off 12 years ago. I was 43 everyone I knew that was laid off was my age or older and all of us were in the top 20% of sales. They sprinkled in a few young people so you can’t get them for age discrimination.

by
|
Post ID: @1ybuw+18dXSeis

Newer hires are cheaper hires. Those with many years under the belt unfortunately cost more in salary, time-off, benefits, bonuses, etc.

by
|
Post ID: @1eft+18dXSeis

New employees aren’t jaded yet

by
|
Post ID: @gmq+18dXSeis

Let's be real here. When did AstraZeneca layoffs ever made any sense?

by
|
Post ID: @wdm+18dXSeis

New employees being retained while the rest of us are shown the door is no coincidence.

by
|
Post ID: @khy+18dXSeis

Post a reply

: