Thread regarding AT&T layoffs

Been 3 weeks and still not posted?

Maybe somebody is hearing things. Older workers don't recall things too well.

"still no proof"

This is only a gossip forum. When is the last time you saw information here that was both, breaking news and true?

Today, is the time, not breaking news but it is true.

You can try to hide and squirrel away. Your efforts have become very tiresome.

Enough of us watched the webcast. We watched it in real time. This was the 2nd Quarter earnings webcast.

It's so comical!
How Stank and boot-lickers on this site say there are a bunch of whiners ....
wait till they hire a bunch of Millenials and younger!
And I guess he hasn't figured out that younger people are not loyal and will not stay. Many corporate kids just want to climb the ladder. They will BS their way everywhere.
THIS is what Stank wants?

I heard Stankey say he get getting rid of old workers because they just aren't any good. Just not right to say that.

Post from TheLayoff.com

He said that our company does not look like the rest of America in terms of age. That we are older than the country at large. All he needed to say is that we want to make sure AT&T is an appealing destination including for recent grads. That’s it. However, my department (marketing in mass markets) has zero entry level roles. Not one.

Kind of hard to appeal to younger people when you don’t have any actual jobs. And younger people want flexibility which you are reducing. They also want to be able to try different things.

Well we have not had a single person voluntarily move into or out of my AVP team for another internal role in over a year. When you’re stuck, it doesn’t really help career development, another thing younger people want. These people never cease to amaze.

" Stankey said "we need younger employees...."

Not entirely incorrect, but it was more "we STILL have a lot of older employees..." (I am confident that is almost verbatim, as I was listening) ---implying that we have been trying to shed them, and need to continue to shed them. Which definitely left those of a certain vintage feeling targeted and vulnerable. And perhaps litigious, being a protected class and all.

Stankey said "we need younger employees...." that phrase implies that AT&T does not have a lot of younger employees, hence the "need". AT&T has a lot of senior employees working (it is a fact). It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that Stankey is wanting to get rid of senior employees, because if the intention was to ADD more younger employees, he would phrased it better. Like, we are wanting to attract more young talents vs we NEED younger employees. Big difference.

" My entire team was on the call. We've batted this around a few times, thinking possibly we were not paying attention at a crucial moment. None of us heard anything derogatory."

What did you all "think" you heard then? Genuinely curious.

I was on and I heard it, and I honestly could not believe what I was hearing. Now, that should not be taken to mean it was "over the top" offensive, because I don't think that it was. When I say I couldn't believe what I was hearing, what I mean I could not believe that any CEO would ever say something like that. Which they wouldn't, well, except for our real winner of a CEO.

He basically clearly stated there were still too many older employees on the payroll. In a nutshell, that's it.

"still no proof"

This is only a gossip forum. When is the last time you saw information here that was both, breaking news and true?

My entire team was on the call. We've batted this around a few times, thinking possibly we were not paying attention at a crucial moment. None of us heard anything derogatory. I think all of us were chatting with other teams at the time. No one else heard it either. After 2 weeks and still no proof, we are thinking it didn't happen.

"...and I am sure HR, legal, lawyers and higher ups are discussing how to cover this all up."

It's already covered up. It's over.

"BE PATIENT:
Don’t assume nothing is being done."

Yes, don't assume, but be CONFIDENT that nothing is being done.

Because nothing is being done.

I heard the comments real time. I don't know anyone that recorded them.

As far as a replay, there is no legal obligation for the company to provide a replay to an optional attendance employee meeting.

the FACT that AT&T is not even making it available for everyone (recording) already made a DENT and I am sure HR, legal, lawyers and higher ups are discussing how to cover this all up.

BE PATIENT:
Don’t assume nothing is being done.

This internal call where CEO talked to employees about Q2 earnings couldn’t be heard live by all employees — as some had customer meetings.
Unlike other quarters, a recording wasn’t provided. Any employment lawyer worth a dime would ask why their client is receiving only a redacted written summary and not privy to his or her colleagues received and why this hasn’t been shared in the same manner as other quarters.

T will eventually have to provide the unedited version of the meeting.

It will be available. Be patient & give it a little more time.

It’s more that the media doesn’t care, because T is pretty irrelevant.