Thread regarding Cisco Systems Inc. layoffs

Employees, don't count on your RSUs

There are a slew of older folks I know in the LR. They are usually higher-paid and then legally Cisco doesn't need to pay out on the RSUs. It's a huge legal loophole that Cisco uses that saves hundreds of millions. If Cisco had to pay all the outstanding RSUs to those they put in the LR, Cisco might stop this sick layoff culture when profits are good.

Shareholders, be proud of Cisco. Sr leadership looks after your profits more than the employees!

Employees, don't count on your RSUs. The more you get, the more likely you are to be in the next LR.

Bumped for valuable info from @8zto+1l3t3rh7.

by
| 2404 views | | 8 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1lc0yt0i

8 replies (most recent on top)

Cisco promotes how they are the best place to work, and it is for the execs, not the most of the rest of us. The greed at the top is unbelievable. The rest of us are the minions. Come to San Jose, walk past Chuck or Fran between buildings or in parking with an ocean of Teslas, and you'll see first how they feel like they are celebrities and above the rest of us. What you see on a check-in video is one thing, a facade of care and empathy, what you get is another, a very cold shoulder. Reach out to one of them and if you hear back, it will be an admin directing you elsewhere as they are too good to talk to us unless they are in front of a camera.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3gsi+1lc0yt0i

This is how RSUs work, what's the surprise?

They're only valid for the term you work there, obvisously!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1qbs+1lc0yt0i
Why is it a bad thing that leadership looks after profits more than employees? Do you personally invest in companies that play fast and loose with your money?

Do some historical research. Our country was a lot better off with less debt, less deficit spending, lower prices, etc. back when companies actually had retirement pension plans instead of 401(k)'s and employees stayed with 2 or 3 companies their entire work career instead of changing jobs every 2-3 years.

While companies need to look to making profits, who says that they need to make millions or billions of dollars in profits? Isn't millions in profits enough? By sacrificing just a little bit of profits to keep employees happy, they'll be more profitable overall. Happy workers do a better job than sullen, unhappy, unmotivated employees.

Companies should only pay a salary to their employees. This mumbo jumbo about getting extra perks is why companies fail in the first place. No more free lunches, drinks, RSUs, etc. Giving out all these unlimited goodies is a form of communism/socialism and we all know how countries with those economic policies end up.
Capitalism is the only way to economic success.

That's a little bit short-sighted. Look at retail & fast food industries and see how well those companies are doing because they just pay a salary and that's it. Their staffing churn rate is huge, but luckily they don't have much in training/onboarding or setting up accounts and access. If tech companies had to replace employees as often as fast food places do, they'd never deliver new product features or bug fixes.

And, if paying employees the bare minimum is the capitalism end-goal, there's going to be a lot of under or unemployed people over 40 because people under 40 can do their jobs almost as well for a much cheaper wage cost. Then, who's going to be buying the products these capitalistic companies are selling if people are under or unemployed in their 40's and older. Society wants people to work until they're older and keeps raising the retirement age, but capitalism wants younger and cheaper workers.

Good luck with part 3 of step 2. If your wife has to go through the same steps you listed, she's probably too tired for much horizontal dancing.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rhc+1lc0yt0i

Yep, happened to me; five years ago. Lots of old regular stock options then a few good bouts of RSUs, and a promotion. My Director then left for another group; then it was only a matter of time until my LR number was drawn in the new group; being the new long-term person on the team.

Luckily I planned for the inevitable; and had a good cash in. Between the LR package and the options, it was a good chunk of money; good enough to get IRS audited (my fault because I did not complete the "mark to market" purchase price correctly.

Not sure how that would play out today.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @koq+1lc0yt0i

I can attest to this. I got a bu-t load of RSUs last year. I was super excited and thought I basically had that banked as long as I kept my job 4 more years. Well, 6 months later, I got the boot. And my understanding is that a lot that had RSUs also got cut.

No sour grapes as the situation couldn't have worked out any better for me. However, heed my advice that RSUs should not either be reason to take a job or stay at a job. Because when times get tough, you will be one of the first to go. RSUs are nothing more than golden handcuffs to keep you in line until they need to drop you.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @jgm+1lc0yt0i

Companies giving out perks to entice prospective employees is the very definition of capitalism. Are you high?

By the way I like how your "steps to success" amounts to being stuck in The Matrix forever. Birth, School, Work, Death amirite?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @jtx+1lc0yt0i

Companies should only pay a salary to their employees. This mumbo jumbo about getting extra perks is why companies fail in the first place. No more free lunches, drinks, RSUs, etc. Giving out all these unlimited goodies is a form of communism/socialism and we all know how countries with those economic policies end up.
Capitalism is the only way to economic success. So in brief:

  1. work, get paid
  2. go home, eat your dinner, bang your wife, go to sleep
  3. wake up in the morning, eat breakfast, go to work
  4. go to step 1
by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ovg+1lc0yt0i

Why is it a bad thing that leadership looks after profits more than employees? Do you personally invest in companies that play fast and loose with your money?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @pfe+1lc0yt0i

Post a reply

: