Anyone able to confirm?
19 replies (most recent on top)
Cisco did this in the past and Cisco's actual talent was working at a competitor for more money and a year's free salary the following Monday. Cisco forgot after the first try but finally learned the second time that paying that much money to give their competitors their best talent is id--tic.
I'm impressed about someone complaining about not getting a "retirement package" while being under 50. At least in the US as at-will employees they can toss one on the street with nothing and with 13 years they should have been good enough for a 6 months severance package which is much better than most of the companies I worked for offered. Everyone I knew who took ER were both quite old and had a decade or more of service. I'm very surprised to hear they didn't have a minimum number of years of service as part of the criteria.
the only people getting early retirement are ELT an VPs
It didn’t happen. No ER is being offered
If you have been too lazy to polish your resume and resign on your own, then LR is the best thing for you to get on with your life with a more rewarding career that you can be proud of and not feel embarrassed and ashamed when someone asks who you work for
Anyone laid off (typically the bottom half) should get no more than two months of severance. It's a waste of money for the shareholders.
18 months is the cobra eligibility timeline. Zip to do with an imaginary ER offering.
18 mo. LOL....Cisco has never done that, even in the JC days. Last ER was 6 mos. (same as they're giving regulars today.
18 mo....you're dreaming. Have you seen the stock price? LOLOLOLOLOL
typically there is a min age requirement (50 or 55) and there typically is a "veto" either due to role or IPF above a threshold
Cisco, and companies in general, should not be able to veto/deny early retirement based on role or IPF above certain thresholds and then turn around and LR that person for a smaller severance package less than a year later.
I do like that Cisco added some extra exemptions to the ER process for the 2nd one by saying that people who'd been hired w/in the last year, or changed roles in the last year, or had less than 5 yrs of service. During the first ER round, and then the subsequent WRF (workforce reduction) that occurred 3 mo later, a guy was standing at the copier making copies of something and was super pi---d off because he was a college hire back in '98 and had 13 yrs w/ the company, but he was under 50 and therefor ineligible for the ER package. His manager had about 18 mo w/ Cisco, was already 55, so his age + 1 year of service made him eligible and he took the ER package and left with twice the severance of the guy w/ 13 yrs of service. I'd be pi---d off in his shoes too. But the subject metric of age + service = 72 is not feasible.
I was worried a couple of yrs ago when they did the 2nd ER just before the "at risk" notification and "voluntary separation" that I'd be considered "at risk".
typically there is a min age requirement (50 or 55) and there typically is a "veto" either due to role or IPF above a threshold
“Intel (INTC) is doing layoffs with ER. I wish Cisco (CSCO) can do the same.”
50% of staff would apply and be working at competitor by Monday.
Too expensive ER not happening just usual LR's
whats a 72 years metric?
Age + years of service should equal 72 or greater.
It’s not on the table… far too expensive.
I’m going to take the package if it’s offered.
whats a 72 years metric?
might as well dream big !
Yeah, I'd be gone in a NY minute.
💯 would do this!!
Intel (INTC) is doing layoffs with ER. I wish Cisco (CSCO) can do the same.