The main goal here is cost cutting. It's not growth, it's not innovation, and it's not good service anymore. It's all about cost cutting. In an environment like that, nobody is safe. Relocating to a company that's in cost-cutting mode is pure lunacy in my opinion. Nobody should make plans past the next twelve months when it comes to T.
28 replies (most recent on top)
I suspect it's because they took retiree medical away and they want that benefit until medicare kicks in. Medical for two people age 60 would be 2k per month. I also suspect they might enjoy what they are doing rater than where they are doing it. Last and final nobody wants to draw down on 401ks in a bad economy. The market has been like yoyo for 3 years. The market rose 20 percent last year but that was more of a recovery. Last and final these older people you are referring to have been through a bunch of recessions. You younger people have never seen one......trust me one is coming within 6 to 12 months.
Whatever reason they are still working is up to them. It could be because their spouse died, have no kids and are lonely. The job gives them a reason to get out of bed. They or their wife may be sick and too young for Medicare or Medicare don’t cover the costs. People have their own reason.
I don’t have a problem for people that are 50 years old and working but I do wonder if you’ve been with this company or any company for that matter for about 40 plus years and you’re still working or need to work, is that you just being greedy trying to keep cashing the check and banking for your 401K or you had made some poor financial decisions in your life that need an income? Depending on when you start with T, you’re more likely eligible to receive pension + social security + retirement.
Union member here. We still get Premedicare Retiree Healthcare. Lol.
Until they take it away. You think your active union members will walk over retiree benefits? hah
Google top surgeons in the US and I will guarantee they are all above the age of 50. Only a person under the age of 30 wouldn't understand that. Quick at the response but slow with the fact finding. Typical young person with little life experience.
Some of these youngsters here having tantrums about older workers. I’m still a bit away from 50 but when your career is doing man’s work you get a man’s respect. That includes respecting those that have the job longer, knows the tricks. They have beat up their bodies longer and may be a little slower but as long as they try and they help then they provide a benefit. We have all had to survive surpluses, see our friends lose their jobs, and worry about the future.
That’s been part of SBC/AT&T for years, and we have had to su-k it up and keep moving forward. Attacking older workers and whining they should retire just makes the younger workers look like insolent toddlers having a tantrum. Next time you want to have a tantrum about wanting 50 year olds retire, do all of us a favor. Just hold your breath until you get your way.
The men at AT&T are not your daddy, they don’t care if you get your way or not.
You don't want an old surgeon with deteriorating eyesore and shaky hands. That's for sure.
Old guy here. I know how rotary phones work. I am invaluable.
"Most won’t retire before 65 because of the loss of medical insurance.
THIS!"
Union member here. We still get Premedicare Retiree Healthcare. Lol.
Let me position a questions to all the young people posting negative things about people that are 50. Say you need a complex surgery and you have the choice between a 5 year surgeon or a 50 year old 20 plus year veteran. I know for a fact you will choose the 50 year old because that person has done this many times and they have the experience.
Now I know I'll get a lot of people saying these are not identical situation but the one thing that is....is experience. Only a young 25 year old would not understand the experience a 50 year old has.
Most won’t retire before 65 because of the loss of medical insurance.
THIS!
I took a corporate job that was vacated by a non-hub employee. We have lots of new faces but many more old timers that do little to no work. But the Chief of Staff confided that if the AVP cut all the dead weight, she’d be demoted to Director (or area manager). So I’m guessing I’m not really needed other than substantiating the need for an AVP title (and pay). I better start looking to get back in a field role.
How productive ate you really when you are 50?
Who would even make a boneheaded comment like this. Most people that are 50 have a lot of experience and deployed all the solutions that are in place today. They also have work ethic that a lot of the younger folks don't. The younger people stay two years then leave because the work is to hard. Seen that a lot.
Where are you getting off?
Ever heard of cradle to grave employment at at&t? It is real!
This would be a good question for the CEO. He’s over 50, so are all of his direct reports and most of their direct reports.
Personally, a lot of the over 50 crowd are more productive than the younger crowd.
——————————————————-
How productive ate you really when you are 50?
How productive ate you really when you are 50?
We are no longer viewed as premium service provider, we are simply a commodity just like pork bellies and corn.
Sound like an old guy with outdated skills worrying. Your home telephone experience not going as far as it used to.
Most won’t retire before 65 because of the loss of medical insurance. For the ones not in that bucket, it’s obvious that they are in a protected, cushy, low stress, do little role; otherwise, they would leave immediately. Nobody in a stressful job would stay longer than they have to. So they say pay me to go or where’s my package. I know quite a few people like that, all they ever do is pushback and say no. Think about it, if you had an easy job you’d hang out all day, do little and collect a check. Great work if you can find it.
@kwn+1ruQe7ZK
“What they could do is eliminate severance and offers for people who continue to work past normal retirement age. After paying people a good salary for many years, Why should they have to pay them extra to leave. The way it is now, employees don't retire when they are ready because they are waiting for an extra payout. This has caused a few different problems”
I tend to agree. I mean there’s an older group that has been with the company for at least 45 years and they will not retire?! Some of them would go around and brag about how much they’ve saved up and invested in 401K + pension while the younger groups with family are worried to death and scrambling to look for better opportunities elsewhere. I think there’s gotta be some kind of guideline or maximum years of service that one should oblige. I just find it greedy or you’ve done some bad financial choices in your life if you STILL need to work for income after 45++ years with one organization.
Don't expect to a cushy do-nothing, get-paid job. Going to have to actually work for your salary.
"Many are of retirement age"....so many are age 67+? Not that I've seen. 50, 55, 60, even 65 is not "retirement age" and people need every dollar in this economy. That doesn't change when you reach your 50s.
Glad I have a union contract.
This isn't an easy problem to solve. Employees who have been around the longest get paid the most but they also have to train the new employees. If they don't the company will fail after they retire. We need a better way to compensate them and make sure they have skin in the game. Maybe a shift to more stock-based compensation would get them to care about the company more.
Following your excellent line of thought Randy and Stinky should pay the company back their multimillion bonuses as a reward for a lifetime of employment and failures.
What they could do is eliminate severance and offers for people who continue to work past normal retirement age. After paying people a good salary for many years, Why should they have to pay them extra to leave. The way it is now, employees don't retire when they are ready because they are waiting for an extra payout. This has caused a few different problems.
It comes down to money - 2 execs have said, “not paying people to leave”. One even said “many are of retirement age, so not paying people to leave”
But I’m with you. They should really sharpen their pencils and make an offer of some kind because it will accelerate their quest for fewer employees and may just be what employee needs to take leap to retirement or help them during their search time for another opportunity.
Idk why they just don’t open offer for management buyouts. You want us out so bad— let us take our severance and leave then. Many of us have been preparing for the last year and are just waiting for the buyout letter. We don’t have to walk empty handed and those that want to stay can stay. It’s a win win.