It costs the company 50% more, drains out top talent, leaves behind chaos. Put another way, if VSP is so good, why not offer it every year?
18 replies (most recent on top)
Why VSP? More than 40 years ago, Congress enacted the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which forbids employment discrimination against anyone 40 years of age or older in the United States. If Vz were to eliminate folks over 40 via RIF, they open themselves to class action lawsuits, so VSP eliminates that legal risk. But they must really sweeten the VSP deal to clear out the targeted over 40 group, and particularly to get rid of the old white males so they can achieve their DEI objectives and reduce their costs without risking expensive litigation.
VSP max weeks =60
Standard RIF max weeks = 35
Difference is 42%.
30% vs 50%, ready? Hold on tight!
If they were going to give you 2 weeks, let's say $10,000, but they gave you 3 weeks, so $15,000.
So they gave you $5000 more. The difference is $5000/$10000, which is, wait for it, 50% more.
Hope you didn't work in finance!
The price of VZ stock . That’s why we VSP. It’s up to $44 now , x how many shares ?
Speaking from former area of experience, Verizon owns/operates and sells a Network/Service.
Technology changes, skills grow and develop or others fall behind.
If I was in upper levels and this was my business you absolutely know it’s aimed at
“Old, slow, and expensive…, need young and cheap, and adaptable.”
The knowledge from yesteryear isn’t as important as the need to adapt to what is coming versus what has already happened.
Don’t agree with it, but you can see the justification easily enough.. - Fmr VZ Network guy
@1nqb+1uvWXveo yea you.
"It costs them 30% more, not 50"
Somebody's bad at math!
It costs them 30% more, not 50 and it's typically used for a wholesale reduction when they are looking to do massive reorgs and consolidation and/or would like to entice the over 40 crowd to exit. RIFs on the other hand, are targeted based on reducing redundancies, offshoring, or outsourcing. Rarely for performance, but it happens as well.
As for the young uns' complaining about the tenured employees, you have no clue what you are talking about. These people have a work ethic that you will never come close to meeting. Many of them started as craft in the 80s and have worked their way up. This was when the company actually rewarded performance and provided room for advancement. Something else you'll never see. You'll get your turn. And 20 years from now, people will be complaining about you being an incompetent tenured employee.
P.S. Probably 20% of the people that left will be back as contractors in 6 months when they can't find there are no "competent" people left to do the work that hasn't stopped.
And to the person arguing that we are a tech company, get real.
The VSP takers on my team were not close to retirement age.
38 (18yrs)
43 (21yrs)
34 (14 yrs)
The prior VSP from my old team I saw very similar results, so I’m not sure I believe the majority of vsp takers were close to retirement.
To the person who said we're a service provider and not a tech company: Retail is dying. There are so many parts to this company you don't even know exist.
There’s some truth to “forcing out”. I know quite a few folks around 60 that took the VSP, they admitted they would’ve stayed on a few more years had there weren’t a VSP.
OP -
Verizon is not a technology company, it is service provider, utility company.
Which Verizon product owns the business or consumer market ?
Top talent will not choose Verizon for employment, so no worry about talent drains
If they need to solve complex problem, they will hire consultants to resolve for them
“force out” those close to retirement - they are likely overpaid for the outcome they are producing - is so ignorant!!! I get a kick from all the posts about getting rid of the “dead weight, or the old, lazy, unmotivated boomers, so somehow all the younger folks can replace us with their skill sets and energy. I would guess that the frequent critics noted here lack the credentials, certifications, skill set, education or even the will to fill most of the jobs that were vacated.. So continue opining and I will chuckle when the openings are back filled by the same over 40 tenured, but "overpaid" professional who will be unable to produce the outcomes that someone under forty can?
I partly agree with the first comment. However, I know plenty “incompetent self preserving over tenured resources” that chose to stay, and talented competent tenures choosing to leave - a real talent drain.
Several factors: 1. “force out” those close to retirement - they are likely overpaid for the outcome they are producing. 2. More convenient for management. When faced with a large target, no need to juggle project priorities, relationships, legal constraints; 3. Good for those that take it. A parting gift. Big picture though, year over year of RIFs in the thousands, regardless of form, just shows VZ leaders have no clue on means for growth.
I really think the VSP is Han's way of trying to do the right thing. Every one of the people affected chose to take the VSP. This is much better than an involuntary RIF. Even worse to do like ATT and RIF with no severance by telling you your job has moved to a different city.
The problem is that if they RIF, they might pick up too many over 40 and then they open themselves to class-action lawsuits. Every so often they need to do this to clear out over 40s. It's the only way to do it legally. Then they figure, if they need the talent, they'll just bring them back as contractors.
It drains out incompetent self preserving over tenured resources that is healthy.