There are many conflicting opinions when I talk about it with my colleagues. What do you think, is NSI mostly dictated by age?
16 replies (most recent on top)
OP, the question is very poorly asked. HR is absolutely watching to make sure that those thrown in NSI belong to all age categories and whatever other demographics could spark a lawsuit are carefully considered. The real question is: within this apparent demographic “balance”, is the series of oversized, endless MLRPs targeting specifically the REs?
That was the plan from the beginning. In the 2020 layoff they took care of those around 50 yo (eliminate them just before they enter protected NRE status!). During the same time, but in the “voluntary” plan, they forced all RE supervisors, advisors and senior principals to retire (easy to do, being threatened with the loss of the secret supplemental pension and unvested RSUs).
That left the regular worker REs, whom they could not grab by their $1M+ supplemental pension because they don’t have one, and they couldn’t lay them off in order to avoid lawsuits. But you imagine that, having thrown overboard some of their own fraternity, they wouldn’t rest until they also hit the regular workers.
Since the new and only strategy to right the sinking ship was to get rid of all experienced (and highly paid) employees, the plan needed a third leg, which is this apparently weird, completely asinine oversized PIP. Officially, the (remarkably idi-otic) explanation provided by the management is that in the worst year of the company they decided, by an incredible coincidence, to HELP and INVIGORATE the employees by getting rid or destroying the careers of 8% of the workers each year. They could never come up with a smarter cover because the real goal was to eliminate the REs.
The actual number of REs put in NSI each year has to be relatively low (maybe 1-2 of the 8%), so it wouldn’t look like age discrimination, which it very much is, but it works both directly and by indirectly by focusing REs on early retirement (also much helped by the transition from record low to high interest rates that control the lump sum amounts).
One other thing that crystallized in the process is that the sponsored category (technical and regular management, plus those slated for promotion to those ranks) are exempt from the PIP. So the statement that “all” CLs are affected by the PIPs is a lie - the PIP in practice stops at CL29, and it applies ONLY to non-sponsored technical people of those CLs.
This also explains the absurdity where young people have their career thoroughly ruined by being put in NSI while being encouraged to take the PIP because they have “a high chance of passing it”. That’s because the real target were not the young people, but the REs; the former were “collateral damage” in the process of hiding age discrimination.
I can’t imagine how much money our im_becile “leaders” have paid the consultants to come up with the perfect plan to gut this company.
I resemble some of these remarks
Seems NSI is not applied at 5% for management and executives. This is where NSI would actually have the biggest positive impact on the company.
NSI the people making the bad decisions and giving the worst orders instead of NSI to the minions following those bad decisions and orders.
No, it is not. NSI (the 5%) is equally employed across all CLs. Now, ask whether it is applied equally across management vs. non-management
It’s also the case, in my experience, that some of the lower-ranked older folks were just not as ambitious as they once were. They recognize there’s limited upward trajectory now, they’re too tired for lots of OT for leading initiatives, too jaded for kissing senior mgmt butts, too set in their ways for innovation (perhaps burned by years of trying to innovate with no support from XOM), and/or too bitter to motivate and mentor the younger generation. These are they types of things that help a person to get to VG-Outstanding in higher CL levels and near-retirement folks aren’t always gunning for it.
I have seen the absolute undeniable best performing RE personnel dropped in ranking with young ignorant recent hires moved above them on the list.
Pure age discrimination.
Datapoint.
I always received good to outstanding ranking until I hit age 55. Then bam, I was surprised with a NI on some flimsy fabricated reasons.
Absolute correlation with age and ranking in CX. Might be a few outliers but its 100% correlated. Wont matter after 4-6 years when most of CES is MSP'd.
There is a correlation with age.
Over 55 and not executive yet implies that your sponsor, if you ever had one, has retired and you have a target on your back to subtract RG points.
One saving grace is that in your long career, you supervised a young sponsored kid, and that kid has moved significantly upwards now protects you.
I have seen absolute experts in their field NSI after their sponsor(s) retire.
On occasion, just to mix things up, a person will be given NSI/PIP based on poor performance.
NSI relates to age only to the extent one is near or at NRE. Those people are selected to be queued up to leave and has many benefits. A track record of 2 or 3 NSIs creates easy justification to push them out at first RE opportunity and it saves someone else from being tossed in the dumpster. They typically earn much more and it is thought that someone else with much lower CL can fill in. It then requires a necessary counter balance of weeding out the young undesirables who have demonstrated they aren't a "good fit". Generally, most are thrilled to go, so it's close to a win all around
No. I don’t think it’s age related unless that coincides with a certain demographic they want to cull. There are times they want to clear out high earners which tend to be those a bit older. Other times they want to get rid of people before they are vested (when it took years to become vested). They tend to be younger. In 2020, it was a cr-p shoot. If you were RE, you were gone, and every group had to lose a certain number of people regardless of age. Right now, I think it’s just a numbers game. They want to get rid of enough people to get headcount where they want it. If they don’t get it by people retiring or quitting, they will get it down by just creating enough NSIs to do the job.
Duhhhh……any fool can see it’s all about age.
It's more based on your pay and 'value' to the company.
I've worked for the company 30 years now and think I'll be ok.
I've been running the Phosgene and H2SO4 controls at BT Complex the last 15.
I'd really be ticked if they let me go just for my age.
Dictated by performance
A remark on age….
Exxon’s online job applications explicitly ask for the age of the applicant.
First they ask your citizenship, then they ask the date your citizenship was acquired. Both fields are mandatory. The application explicitly instructs the applicant to enter in their birthdate as the date citizenship was acquired if they were born in the country where the vacancy is posted.
Interestingly, most of the requisitions posted to Exxon’s careers page state that the company will not sponsor visas. Also, they ask the citizenship question again in standard checkbox form at the end of the application.
Conclusion: Exxon is screening for specific age groups under the guise of screening for citizenship.
Pro tip: never hand over your birthdate or your SSN until after you’ve accepted a formal job offer.
In Annandale it is