Does anybody else see a problem with this?
8 replies (most recent on top)
"I’m just curious - of all that have been terminated- what the percentage is between ages over 40 and under 40. Combined with years of service."
The thing is, unless there are a large number of individuals terminated who are over 40, or a particular position was replaced with a younger worker, it is hard to prove age discrimination. That said, they can replace your position with a younger person once you've signed any severance agreement. Large organizations know how to manipulate their actions so they remain in a defensible position. There is no loyalty any longer; trust no one, look out for yourself first, and be loyal to yourself, your family, and your needs first.
As I understand, Usually layoff is based on multiple things. Company direction, profitability, department budget, team, grade level, value you provide at that grade level and salary. Usually during tough times, people who are not client billing are let go first.
I’m just curious - of all that have been terminated- what the percentage is between ages over 40 and under 40. Combined with years of service. Watching so many people with lots of years in the company - over the past 6 years - be terminated makes me believe the company is being nefarious. The biggest problem is, nobody has resources to not take the severance package, thereby giving up all the rights to sue. I really believe that’s what they bank on. I’m starting to feel like I’m going to be that bi--h to take it on.
Institutional knowledge is even more important with intricate systems. This is a major reason why using Thryve is not working. That initial cost savings has resulted in issues which cost considerably more to fix.
Damage is irreversible. Including reputation. Get out if you can.
Ahahaha that's a good one, suggesting executive pay should go down. That is the one thing that never ever happens! They'll burn the place to the ground before they take a pay cut
older workers often bring experience, reliability, and strong work ethics to any workplace... there is a ton of studies that show that companies with age-diverse teams perform 35% better (if productivity and decisionmaking is measured) and yet, many businesses still lay off older employees first (i thin we are doing the same), thinking they save costs, but they actually lose institutional knowlege which cannot be hired... so, this is a wrong move indeed...
AARP has a paper that says that replacing a worker over 50 costs an average of $50,000 in lost productivity and hiring expenses. This nutty practice hurts both companies and the economy. Age discrimination lawsuits have increased by 20% in the last five years, so something is happening here.
companies should value skills over birth dates... younger folks may bring tech skills but older folks bring problem-solving... and leadership that can't be replaced overnight. maybe execs can consider to stop seeing older workers are "too expensive" when their experience saves businesses money in the long run. Layoffs should be based on performance, not age. And also, they should cut executive pay first - before any layoffs. They can save big money that way.
When you get let go they give you documentation on all people that were under consideration with their ages and job titles along with the people that were chosen and ages to show that out of that group they didn't target only older individuals. It's all broken down by the director level which is probably why they aren't letting the managers have input. They have more of a pool pf people to choose from leaving at the director level
Contractor go let go too