How is severance in the US handled by new management? It used to be VPs had a year. Everyone else had 2 weeks per year worked. Is this still the case?
9 replies (most recent on top)
I hear you brother (or sister). What’s galling is to see many high performing colleagues’ employment terminated, while many incompetent or barely competent and under-performing employees/managers remain. Their talk of agility and increased “efficiency” is all b/s. No hope of anything changing soon - incompetency, under-performance and mediocrity will prevail and RIFs will continue.
@5grj+18lsjrGC - oh, for sure. And I regret categorizing everyone who doesn’t meet their goals as dumb or lazy. That was a bit harsh and more of an emotional response to some of the team members I worked with. The stage has been set for mediocrity, as you mention.
The company can talk about goals all it wants ... they can talk about being here now, being agile, and the like. To me, it’s irrelevant. You are only as good as your weakest systems, and the system punishes good workers and rewards subpar performers.
I calculated a long time ago that I, a performer, was more likely to get canned than a non-performer or one of those people who are toxic to team and company morale.
@3vol+18lsjrGC: you make some good points. However, have to query your comment about those who never exceed their goals as being "dumb". As you point out, they are low down on the pecking order for being shown the door. They can't be that dumb, as they are the ones still with the jobs, and they also work at a pace where they aren't going to crack a sweat or take their work home with them each working day. They're smart enough to realise that it's not them with the problem, but their bosses who are in a vicious food chain being snapped at from above. I see these type of people every day, while those with any clues and a good work ethics were quietly shown the door years ago, If you set the grounds for mediocrity, that's what you get.
@3yil+18lsjrGC - that’s easy. People who exceed their goals are driven individuals who set good goals, are looking to grow, and want to be experts in their field. They have lots of product, industry, and customer information. They also know the strengths and weaknesses of the org better than their leads/managers and would be people that could replace existing leadership. They are a threat, so they are shown the door first.
People who never exceed goals are lazy, dumb, and happy to be along for the ride at TR without contributing any value to the company. They are docile and will never attempt to challenge the status quo.
It’s one of the reasons I left the company. I far exceeded the last three years. I went to a competitor who had a better understanding of my value and worth than TR did.
Severance package is fair but the process isn’t . I think they only have such a generous package to avoid being sued. How else would they explain people who never met goals staying on but people who exceeded their targets being let go?
Typically has been 2 weeks per year for average working folk with minimum of 8 weeks. VP level gets 1 year. Benefits are paid through the end of month when severance ends. In fairness, although the way TR handles annual layoffs is sh–ty, the severance is fair. Now, this doesn't take into consideration the fact they typically let go of higher paid more tenured people, that is an entirely other story.
Unless you are union or have a contract (VIPs do, most dont), you are work for hire -you can be terminated when they want, or leave when you want. The current policy is 2 weeks for every year of service, up to a year of salary. Medical benefits are paid through the end of the month before your last day of work.
I don't think redundancy was ever specified in contract - it referenced the HR handbook on mine ?
Surely this is dependant on what is specified in an employee’s latest employment contract, and signed by the employee?