Employees who are older and have been here for a while have higher salaries. Instead of laying them off and paying all of them hefty severance in the process, they've decided to force RTO on us. A good number of older employees is worried enough about their health that they'll be forced to quit. And who profits from that? Fiserv. Call me paranoid but something tells me this was a major factor in their decision making.
6 replies (most recent on top)
RIF = Reduction In Force, or laid off
What does RIFF stand for? Thanks
Younger employees tend to live in apartments with no deep financial investment. Now older people tend to own homes and pay mortgage (not rent) for their lifestyle - it is far from easy for these folks to pick up and run. Which makes them fine targets with this stupid lie. IBM tried it some years back and it died a horrible death. Contractors even easier to cut. When the contract comes due for renewal --- do not hing and they vanish.
Though I can't say for sure, it feels like the RTO is RIFF-ish, or the RIF is RTO-ish. There was no consistency to the options people were given, even according to the rationale coming down from the top. One IC I know of was in an authorized go-forward location, another IC was already in a go-forward location, just not the right one. Were they RTO'd or RIFF'd? Hard to tell.
My gut feeling tells me this is all a low-key RIF, and that 'collaboration' and 'co-location' aren't even really considerations.
Well, this may just be a coincidence but right before the RTO push kicked off, 5% of staff were riffed. Everyone I know that got laid off is older. And thats pretty cr---y.
I'm in my late 20's and I've been affected as well. I don't think it's a direct attack on older employees.
It still sucks though.