Thread regarding ExxonMobil Corp. layoffs

EMIT BCJF Manager

Did they seriously try to insinuate that there is no separate advancement path for management vs. technical? I don’t think there’s anyone left who believes that story by now.

by
| 1979 views | | 10 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1cZwDt4d

10 replies (most recent on top)

@okx+1cZwDt4d Management CLs go much higher than 36… if you equated the number of technical positions at CL32 to management, it would be likely similar to or less than the number of VPs or above (38+).

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @iqy+1cZwDt4d

I thought there were high CL ceilings for management vs technical track? Like 36 for management and 32 for technical? May not be the correct numbers, but I thought there was about 4 CL levels different.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @okx+1cZwDt4d

Managers or eunuchs? More like the latter.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @nbp+1cZwDt4d

If you believe that there is no difference between technical and management paths you're not be honest with yourself.

Hiwever, I think that technical positions are a better place to be right now...the flattening is about to start. The current number of management positions is unsustainable.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @plg+1cZwDt4d

Taking the Tech path - getting to heaven remains a possibility.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @jdq+1cZwDt4d

@hbh+1cZwDt4d nobody’s working for some “higher purpose”, it’s all about money. There is no higher purpose for a corporation.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @tla+1cZwDt4d

Have to ask what does 'advancement' mean?
If it is money, then no doubt the Mgt takes most of the cake.
If is fulfillment of intelligent interests and caring about what you do - Tech by a mile.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hbh+1cZwDt4d

Bull Cr@p Job Family??? There's a plenty! Look at me for example *wink *wink

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @igu+1cZwDt4d

Ever notice how highest technical roles are filled by former management

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @qcc+1cZwDt4d

It’s been a joke for years. The lies keep coming…

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @wek+1cZwDt4d

Post a reply

: