Remember when layoffs were really for low performers? When good employees didn't have to worry about it?
Now it's completely different. One day you're praised by your bosses for your loyalty and dedication, and the next day your name is on the layoffs list. No rhyme or reason to it. Now we're all worried about layoffs 24/7. And that's what gets me.
Peppridge Farms remembers
No I don’t I remember when poor performers were fired. Layoffs have been around a long time. You are very young or have been w Wells for 20+ years. Just hitting us now. The way they are doing them is stupid but….
None of this is about performance. It's all about money.
Such trechery only steels my resolve. Severance or death.
In wholesale/COO they are literally trying to make life miserable for employees so they leave. They don’t want to displace and have to pay severance. I know of several cases where a manager is telling their directs that they have no future with WF but they are not being laid off. Even going so far as to enlist others to try to convince them to leave.
The lengths they are going to not have to pay out severance is truly pathetic.
I am not there any longer (bolted when I had the chance) but this is what is happening to people I worked with.
The relationship you describe can be both, reality and the road to failure. Success is impossible with this exec team. I'm close to retirement anyway, so I'll keep taking their checks and then the severance, but if you really think a business thrives with a bunch of cynical uncaring employees that are only there for a check you're in for a rude awakening and so is Hudson Yards. Actually I take that back, Shart doesn't think his cr-p tactics will work, he just thinks he can cash in short term and then pull the rip cord on the Golden Parachute.
BWAHAHAHA!!!
Also possible that high performers might also get viewed as "too expensive". You know, like how your sports team cuts its best players to save money, and thus more to spend on younger, cheaper talent.
Yes, it defies logic and is pretty cruel - work hard and get the promotion and the pay bump - but that makes you more expensive and possibly a bigger target when they throws darts to decide who gets laid off.
Unless you're a buddy of CS, or worked at JPM at some point.
you are a target because the more importance you are, the more china and india outsourcing want your job.
Loyalty? I think employees need to stop doing this. It’s a job. Not a marriage. Not a friendship. It’s a paycheck. That’s something from yesteryear. If any of my employees left for a better gig, I would thank them for their service and wish them well. I’ve always had that mindset. People who give up an opportunity out of loyalty are foolish. In fact, I wouldn’t praise them for making that sacrifice, instead I would think they’re not as smart as I thought. Take. Care. Of. Yourself. It’s your livelihood. We are not “family.”
Your manager has no say in who gets laid off.
Was told by mgr that they ration exceeds to extreme levels of performance. I was laid off in a previous role after getting a bonus and a raise 60 days earlier - tons of praise. When the winds change direction and they need/want to save money, it doesn't matter. I was cut with my entire team. WF is no different than anywhere else. Loyalty to an employer is never in your best interest. Their loyalty to you is an illusion. This place spends tons of money marketing itself to its own employees. They must believe there is a financial return in this or they wouldn't. In my org there are no chance for advancement. I was told this and I see it. If you are not a core or specialty office you will be laid off. It is almost certain. A small minority will be offered relo but it is not likely in your interest financially. I understand those holding out hope because we have had big changes in direction before. This is not going to happen this time.
The year prior to being laid off I also got an exceeds, a promotion, and a near 10% raise. DOES. NOT. MATTER. What we interpret as valuable they see as expensive and expendable.
There are reasons. Behind every layoff there is a business case that is written up and approved. Now, the reasons may not be reasons you agree with. But there are reasons, always.
Generally, the two primary reasons are:
Neither of those reasons require an evaluation of the overall performance of the employee. If you are remote (like I am) you are going to be out sooner rather than later. Doesn't matter what your rating is.
If an area has an efficiency number they need to hit they will come up with the criteria that is to be used to identify impacted employees. It CAN be performance based but it could include other factors that are more important in that exact situation. For example, if a team is shifting their work to India, a decision may be made to focus on retaining just one or two people who are believed to be the most effective people to handle the transition work, regardless of their annual ratings.
Other factors may be compensation related. If you have someone who can do 100% of a job but makes $150K and someone else that can do 90% of the job and makes $80K you may opt to retain the $80K employee even though their performance isn't as strong. Saving that $70K in salary could help keep another person around.
@cup+1ssi4gDL Correct headcount was reduced by using better processes, automating, and reorganizing. Past 3 years US headcount was reduced by Offshoring. Probable total headcount is increased since it takes 1.5-2.5? x Indians to replace 1 US worker.
Reduction in headcount does not necessarily mean increased efficiency.
For the last decade WF has been looking to find ways to either automate with “tools” or reorganize to reduce headcount
that's pretty funny. If you write many reviews and go through calibration then you know that documenting the truth isn't their objective. It might be yours, but not HYs. Easy example: if you make one mistake, literally 5 seconds of poor judgement, then it "should" (in their opinion) crush your review and raise, not just in that calendar year but it "should" continue to haunt you in the following year as well. If you do something especially great dozens of times during the review period, then suddenly it's either "well, they didn't do it consistently throughout the ENTIRE year..." or "that's what we expect them to do anyway, so 'meets'". It's not that they don't understand the nuance between simply doing something vs doing something well, they do, they just don't believe that acting upon that reality in reviews advances their larger agenda (tanking morale, getting the max # of domestic workers as possible to quit). There was a time, the era of "everyone is a 4" when reviews were intentional slanted in the other direction and that was stupid also, but it's no excuse for what's happening now. Reviews now are nothing more than a part of the layoff agenda. That's their only purpose in the eyes of HY.
There are absolute rhymes and reasons. If a “good” employee is laid off they really weren’t that good. There was something undesirable but management has towed the line for decades giving generally equal raises and bonuses across the board because they were afraid to give real reviews and applicable remuneration.
Mass layoffs have always happened. Think Detroit. The only difference is now it’s happening to white collar workers as well as blue.
I had gotten an exceeds, a promotion, and a raise and still got laid off.
Don’t trust your manager