They'll be laying people off left and right anyway. Sure, some people they might want to keep could leave first. On the other hand, it's not as if they've been working hard on talent retention. The only way it wouldn't make sense is if they've been planning to ramp up attrition. That wouldn't be a shocker, really.
14 replies (most recent on top)
I took a voluntary buyout/severance at another firm years ago - it was great - measured transition where all my projects were appropriately handed off; left on great terms with executives and fellow employees. Now I have only good things to say about that company, was able to help them recruit in a few cases and really the voluntary process makes everyone feel great and doesn't "poison the well."
They can't spare the money for severance. They need to save up for lawsuits.
@ds I realized something the other day. If they’re looking to reduce severance payouts, they’re likely to go for the newer people who make a decent salary. I’ve been here long enough to get the max severance but only make a decent pay, nothing spectacular. On the other hand, I know people who have been here 5 yrs or less and make what I make and more. From a financial perspective, it makes sense to let those people go first.
I know a manager who asked to be laidoff. She got laidoff 3 months after asking with a full severance package.
do small banks have slush funds to make discrimination go away?
Because they want to control when we leave for obvious reasons.
@ba Quarter after quarter of complaining that they aren't seeing the attrition numbers they desire, yet offering severance is too expensive.
If they had offered voluntary buyouts to the groups they want thinned out, they'd have already trimmed down to their target numbers and gotten past the severance spending.
Yet here we are, another quarter of this brilliant executive team whining about high severance costs and planning more layoffs.
Just rip that band-aid off already, let the blood flow, then watch it heal and be over. This avoid it all costs behavior tells us they're scared the majority of remaining employees would jump at the opportunity. Trying to force unpaid attrition into a horrible market is just more evidence of the sociopathy executives operate from.
answer to OP's question: control, control, control. Can't leave a decision like where to spend severance $$ up to the employee.
Voluntary buyouts aren't really a thing in corporate america anymore (not just WF) for that reason.
Even when they happen, they have very stringent parameters - what type of job, what levels, etc. They are used to thin out specific areas.
@ab exactly. the concept is ludicrous and would never happen. no company has any incentive to throw severance money around like that just because an employee wants it. they don't care what employees want.
This again?????
why pay severance when HR can invent ways to fire you?
Suggest this in the loud speaker with a good reason. They will give an answer even the suggestion is not taken.
Those perks are reserved for positions at director level and above.
This was just asked a couple days ago.