Today is the last day.
I was terminated because I would not relocate to ‘follow the job’
Others opted to follow the job and were laid off if they were the undesired age or race.
The choice is not real but discrimination is real. We are also being asked to follow a job to a location that cannot accommodate us. There is reasonable suspicion that job location transfers are being processed in a discriminatory fashion and with prejudice. Congress must get involved now. I call on Newsmax and Fox News to investigate these discriminatory practices. We must shine a spotlight on this thinly veiled scam.
18 replies (most recent on top)
Explain to me ONE THING that was “immature” in that comment? Do you even comprehend the definition? Clearly not.
It’s no wonder you’re still employed at T. They settle for what they can get at a minute number of locations.
I'm on the brink of turning 70 and still gainfully employed by ATT. They cannot and will not lay me off! I will leave on my terms and not theirs! It's good work if you can get it!
"It’s shocking to me when I look at the caliber of people getting thrown away simply due to their zip code."
The immaturity in these posts is absurd. What really transpired is the company gave you ample warning of their intention to cease operations at Location A. You were notified you could continue your employment at Location B if you had a desirable skillset and work history. The rest of your drama is manufactured.
it is OBVIOUS that older workers were targeted
Of course it is, but if you took the severance you signed away your rights to sue.
Class of 12/13 too OP!
It’s sad when you’re literally in a designated hub but the org decides it’s not the RIGHT hub. Still plenty of people to collaborate with yet it’s not “good enough”.
It’s a blessing in disguise. Take the severance and find something better. T’s loss.
It’s shocking to me when I look at the caliber of people getting thrown away simply due to their zip code.
OP -- I am sorry this company treated you this way. There were other ways to achieve the goal without hurting so many people. Unfortunately, Stankey, the BoD, and the rest of the C-suite do not really care. Good luck in your future endeavors.
"What ever happened to meeting the requirements of the position, in this case location?"
Because the intent of the location change was to reduce head count, and reduce head count in specific age groups. I have been doing my job for almost 20 years, in a hub city. The only thing that has changed is the CEO and his desk size. The RTO was nothing more than a head count reduction.
"I think the company might actually be disappointed when some of us old dudes say we're going to follow the job. I can almost hear them, "Well, that didn't work out like I thought it would.""
and when you follow the job (on your own dime), leave your friends, uproot your kids from schools and their friends... what happens when the company surpluses you?
If this is true, did you receive severance?
Most of TDP only worked here two years then left. This company median age maybe 45. Or if you are young, working here is wasting your life. Every time I saw your people in the company, I feel sorry for them. After five or ten years, you will lose almost ability to get the new job.
We are losing 4, all under 30. No single gender or race. Not seeing the discrimination. We did lose one guy over 50 about 4-5 cycles back.
What ever happened to meeting the requirements of the position, in this case location?
Since you chose to quit, there’s no need to announce your departure. Just leave.
I think the company might actually be disappointed when some of us old dudes say we're going to follow the job. I can almost hear them, "Well, that didn't work out like I thought it would." Yes, a lot of the folks in my group who said no are well over 50, but just about as many of that age said we're going to move.
OP is so full oh sh*t. Unfounded allegations. You made a choice. Way too much drama.
The average age on the ADEA for Sabrina Sanders' org layoffs due to not following the work was around 55. That speaks for itself.
To responder @dtq+1vX0c5d7
Having been personally impacted by RTO, and not following my job, I was terminated (with severance). Looking at the ADEA for my affected work group, it is OBVIOUS that older workers were targeted. Sure there is smoke and mirrors in play (to diffuse outright discrimination), but they achieved their desired outcome…The shedding of workers age 40 plus.
You might want to cut back on the Kool-Aid, it is clouding your judgement… “non-discriminatory”, I actually laughed out loud when reading your comment.
Reading too much into it. Reducing headcount is being done in a largely non-discriminatory manner.