Thread regarding AT&T layoffs

"If employees leave before Dec 31 and have healthcare subsidy (meet the modified rule of 75), then how long will it be before T eliminates their subsidy? Anything in writing this won't happen? I doubt there is as retirement benefits are not required."

NO, it does not say that this won't happen. In fact, it says it writing EVERYWHERE that this very well might happen, and Stinkly himself said the same in the angry Stanikily/Santone video a few weeks ago.

I am leaving soon with my eyes wide open that this could happen at anytime.

If employees leave before Dec 31 and have healthcare subsidy (meet the modified rule of 75), then how long will it be before T eliminates their subsidy? Anything in writing this won't happen? I doubt there is as retirement benefits are not required.

To be honest, considering how understaffed many groups are, it won't take a mass exodus to trigger a major disruption.

One or two key folks bow out from any given group and that's game, set and match. Those folks will take their knowledge and expertise with them and there isn't anyone left to step into those shoes.

It should be amusing to watch unfold.

AGE DISCRIMINATION is something T has practiced effectively since 2015 and they got away with it very during the layoffs. You sign a release to get the severance and then you cannot sue them for anything. If you decide to retire because of Stinky's pension plan take aways, you have no basis for a discrimination claim.

Let's all give the Kongress a big F U for giving Stinky the rope to hang us.

For fun, discard everything (medical, age, etc.) except your portfolio value. Now, guess what your annual expenses would be. Don't hold back, really guess big. Then, using a rule that's been around forever, calculate 4% of what your portfolio is worth. That is the amount your portfolio will consistently generate annually without depleting it. And you can now compare to your total expenses. If you don't have enough, keep working. If you do, now figure in unknowns like no company provided HC, etc. That will give you a start.

That 4 rule comes from the Trinity study and is based on a traditional 30 retirement for a 65ish year old and other factors like asset allocation. A younger person would need to use a lower percentage 2.5-3.5% depending on age.

Two words, folks: AGE DISCRIMINATION... which happens to be against the law.

OP: "what do you consider the "just right" zone in terms of age/retirement portfolio $$ amount (i know there are a lot of variables, but just play along...i'm curious!!!)"

For fun, discard everything (medical, age, etc.) except your portfolio value. Now, guess what your annual expenses would be. Don't hold back, really guess big. Then, using a rule that's been around forever, calculate 4% of what your portfolio is worth. That is the amount your portfolio will consistently generate annually without depleting it. And you can now compare to your total expenses. If you don't have enough, keep working. If you do, now figure in unknowns like no company provided HC, etc. That will give you a start.

"does ATT 401k allow the rule of 55?"

yes!

does ATT 401k allow the rule of 55?

"The money from the retiree cuts will go toward the more deserving workers that are still employed."

You can't possibly be that stupid.

Don’t be so delusional...ATT only rewards the 4th level and above. Anyone below that is just a grunt with a degree! How funny, occupational grunts make more money than the degreed management personnel in the long run! And it’s only going to get more lopsided! No wonder this company is so screwed up...LMAO!

The money from the retiree cuts will go toward the more deserving workers that are still employed.

Agreed. I like the term "Critical Mass." For me, Critical Mass is when my retirement accounts are sufficient that they will increase in value faster than I will deplete them.

I am already there, so it will be bye-bye AT&T very soon.

In a strange way, the constant threat of being surplused helped me. Because of that, I have lived well below my means and did not increase my lifestyle as my pay increased over the years. The excess money was invested, not wasted. Because of that, I am now in a very comfortable position to walk away from this at age 55. It is such an empowering feeling!

Just Right?
Use the term Critical Mass (The minimum size or amount of something required to start or maintain a venture). Most individuals whom have reached critical mass are most likely in the 60 neighborhood (59-61) and have acquired financial independence over decades of saving and investing. Know your numbers. If you are in your 50s and not sure if you can fund your retirement you have serious work to accomplish. The first step is to understand where you are today and how long it will take to get to the promise land of Critical Mass....good luck to all !!

"what do you consider the "just right" zone in terms of age/retirement portfolio $$ amount (i know there are a lot of variables, but just play along...i'm curious!!!)"

age 60 (give or take)
$2 million
little/no debt

" I'd probably also want to be 59 1/2 so I could access 401K funds without penalty"

FYI - If you leave your job during the year that you turn 55 (even if you haven't yet turned 55) or later - you can access funds from your 401K without penalty. The funds have to be from the 401K with the company that you are leaving. and it applies whether you leave voluntarily or involuntarily. It's called the Rule of 55!

"what do you consider the "just right" zone in terms of age/retirement portfolio $$ amount (i know there are a lot of variables, but just play along...i'm curious!!!)"

I would want to be close enough to Medicare where them reneging on their subsidy promise (which they will) isn't a big deal, or is a non factor. I'd probably also want to be 59 1/2 so I could access 401K funds without penalty, And I'd want somewhere at least close to or exceeding 2 million in retirement assets, with no mortgage and no other debt.

What if you leaver and they cut retiree benefits a short while later?

They know they can’t get back to growth without worker bees. They have obviously chosen to cut expenses in the low level managers. Below Vice President.

"It's only a narrow slice of managers in the "just right" zone that have a decision to make. My guess is 3%."

This is a really good point!!!

A question to all - what do you consider the "just right" zone in terms of age/retirement portfolio $$ amount (i know there are a lot of variables, but just play along...i'm curious!!!)

I'm using the Goldilocks-ThreeBears methodology...

Of the 25% mgmt still eligible for the healthcare subsidy, many people (like myself) are not yet eligible to retire. So we lose either way. Cant retire now; no point in retiring later.

On the other end of the spectrum, a lot of the old, OLD employees are already eligible for Medicare coverage (or close to it.) So they have no incentive to leave because the subsidy removal doesn't impact them.

It's only a narrow slice of managers in the "just right" zone that have a decision to make. My guess is 3%.

People's bark is worst than their bite. Lots of workers will say they will retire but they won't. AT&T will have to find another way to reduce it's unneeded workers.

"So leave this year and keep your benefits or leave next year with nothing"

Some (like me) are fortunate to have access to spouse's medical insurance benefits. So I'll stay and get laid off (whenever that may be) and take the severance (hopefully). Here's an interesting bet: what do they do away with first, the pre 65 healthcare subsidy for those that take the bait and retire this year, or the severance plan?

In our VP area there are 44 people impacted and 13 are definitely taking it and 6 more are considering it, so one sampling will give you 45%, The reality is for folks that don't take it there will be surplus first quarter of 2022 and many old timers will be part of that. So leave this year and keep your benefits or leave next year with nothing. Not confirmed but I am hearing severance moves to 3 months starting next year. Stankey has not made it a secret, he will reduce the Costs and Workforce to continue to cut the Debt. My gut says a good bit of oursourcing will happen in 2022 so no severance at all. My Guess on OP comment is 30% of the 16k impacted

Aren’t bargained for employees guaranteed certain benefits based off the current contract (some contracts renewed / ratified in 2020). So wouldn’t those terms and retirement entitlements apply?

Not necessarily - As most retirees found out Life Insurance was cut in some cases from a years pay to a flat rate amount- This affected both non-mgmt (union) and management. The most common amount I am seeing is 15k. If you read the statements on retiree benefits...just like for management....it says the company reserves the right to terminate at any time. I don't expect current retirees to get Medicare supplements after 2023 but you never know. Scrooge...I meant Mr. Stankey may have a change of heart...but I doubt it

I originally thought most would leave - but I have talked to peers who are planning to stay for various reasons. (not ready financially to retire, they can get spouse benefits, they won't leave without severance, etc)

The decision is not cut and dry and everyone's situation is different.

For me - I am a single parent and therefore I cannot use spouse benefits. I am financially ready even though I wanted to get a few more years under my belt. Another important aspect is the lump sum payout that will most likely be quite a bit lower after this year based on the historically low segment rates used to calculate the payout. And finally, I feel in my gut that it's just time - with the vacation cut, dismal raises, pension cuts, etc.... I am ready to enjoy retirement!

I wish everyone good luck with your decision!

Aren’t bargained for employees guaranteed certain benefits based off the current contract (some contracts renewed / ratified in 2020). So wouldn’t those terms and retirement entitlements apply?

Yeah...i don't really care what the percentage is...I know I will be 100% leaving. With the reduction in vacation, benefits, woke culture...etc it is time for me to go. One of the post here says the subsidy is not that significant...In the state where I live Individual goes from about $100 per month to $796. An increase of about $700 per month and for a family it goes from about $200 per month to $1300. Yes that may get removed also after a few years but all these reductions in benefits add up. I guess the main reason I am leaving is I don't trust this company or its leadership. Luckily for me I am ready to go financially. For those that stay...I suspect the next things that will be cut are pension contributions, reduced severance, raises (pay bands), etc.

"25% of T is getting ready to have their retiree health benefits taken away from them if they don't "voluntarily" retire before 12/31. (Info source: T HR presentation)"

I am not doubting what you "think" you heard, but that statement is erroneous. First of all, we are only talking about non bargained that would be affected with the loss of pre 65 medical subsidy unless they retire this year. This is a specific group of non bargained for MR 75 folks that meet certain NCS date and legacy company criteria. It is not "25% of T" by any measure. It's not even 25% of all non bargained for/ management, but may be close.

I am among the affected and peers that I know that are still here, for the most part, are staying. Mostly out of spite. And also because those around age 50 are smart enough to know that even if they do leave, there is NO WAY T will keep their end of the bargain with that subsidy for more than a year or 2 anyway. Plus, it's not even all that great. The coverage is expensive, and gets more so every year.

I know quite a few people who are losing their retire HC coverage if they don't leave by 12/31. The majority of those want to leave but will only do so with a package. Stinky really screwed over a lot of people. Hope this comes back to bite him in the a–.

25% is a good number.Old guys should move on to something better. Don't hang around just for the sake of hanging around. And being bitter because things aren't the way they used to be,

The folks I spoke to who are eligible are leaning towards stay. The funny part is, they think they will need to work more years at T before retiring so those who were looking to retire in a year or two at 60, now are looking to work until they are 65. Not sure that will be a big win for T.

Numbers are wrong. It’s not 25% of entire workforce as OP is stating (that stand to lose pre 65 healthcare subsidy unless they retire this year). It “may” be 25% of the non bargained workforce, but I think even that estimate is high. In any case, the majority of non bargained/ management are not impacted,as they did not have this eligibility to begin with.

Know of 7 people in small org. Without thinking too hard or gossiping too hard.

I am the OP, and I firmly stick by this figure I stated in my post, because I directly heard it myself from a T HR rep during a presentation to my group in the past couple of months:

25% of T (yes, T as an entire company, not just my group) is getting ready to have their retiree health benefits taken away from them if they don't "voluntarily" retire before 12/31. (Info source: T HR presentation)

Current overall T employee base is older/more experienced than some here seem to believe.

I don’t know the overall #’s, but I don’t feel like it will be a very large group of people that will leave voluntarily prior to the end of 2021.

Due to COVID impacts, good paying jobs are not as easy to come by as they were, especially in some markets. I think the majority of the people who will consider leaving have less than 5 or so years until they can fully retire and are in good financial shape/on target to retire. Even some of these people will just hold on and take their chances.

So yeah, I also predict less people leaving than forecasted, no significant layoffs in 2021, but significant layoffs in the first half of 2022.

For those who haven’t done so yet, do yourselves a favor: Take 2021 to pay off any debt and make sure you have an adequate emergency fund.

I am one of the 14,000 US employees Stinky screw3d over.

At first I thought there would be a mass exodus. But asking around my colleagues that does not seem to be the case at all.

The colleagues that seem to have only a couple of years before they planned on retirement anyway and have MUCH younger spouses are the one that are saying they plan on going.

The rest, the majority, want to run Stinky out of $ as long as they can.

For me, it all depends on the IRS lump sum rates if I go in November or stay to piss of the Stinky!

I believe for management employees, T is in a "wait and see" approach to their reduction needs and will do nothing this year until they tally up the mass exodus of management personnel. The question then remains, what amount of occupational employees T has in mind that need to be off payroll by year end and from which business units? It's the occupational personnel where T can easily reduce headcount...just food for more thought

Everyone seems to think the number will be large but last year's number was very small; less than 1%. I think you will see 6-7%. Folks leaving would need to be under 65, retirement eligible, and financially sound (rare). If those three things are not true, then just wait next year and get a severance package.

No chance that 25% of employees are currently "retirement eligible with subsidized health care till age 65" - nor will be by EOY.

Regardless, there will be more surplus activity this year, next year, and beyond.