Target age early 40's to 60's. They do it by having managers do a new performance review, and then have a wiz bang financial algo deem value in financial terms. Performance versus payroll expense. Managers get the message pretty clear, give low marks on latest performance output so they can justify the ax. They give managers a list of names who report to them. Any high marks are to be elaborated and scaled with some way to measure performance if a good mark is made. Or else. Slick. A.L. Oklahoma manufacturing support staff have targets on their back big time. When? April and May.
13 replies (most recent on top)
You are so full of shit. Over here we got hit very hard and just had a second round and the majority were in there 20's and you 30's.... Where do you all get this info. You are all a bunch of dumb asses.
HR has spoken, listen up.
i know plenty of younger people that were laid off. i dont think age is particularly important across the board like you may think.
And the only part of chemicals that is true for is the Polymers and Crop Protection businesses and that's ah pretty small part of chemicals.
This talk is mute because HAL will divest any business that has no value in oil services.
Visit the Sugar Land offices and you will find out where these back stabbers who are living of the largess of BHI are hiding.
Thank you oh great swami. Please enlighten us with what the non-core businesses are.
Listen up you worthless POS's who are in non core businesses and fall into this age group! It's about time you are let go!
Someone said It is impersonal and capitalistic to be firing people 45 to 65, it is that but also illegal. Someone should collect some facts and do something about it.
81048: Thank you for the insight of "salary vs. performance" as a rule for layoff. I agree 100% that age 45 to 65 is targeted. From personal experience, I sadly saw many women in their 50's (higher pay, good work) getting booted over the last 2 months. Meanwhile, recently hired girls in their 20's (lower pay, ok work) are being kept. It is impersonal and capitalistic, despite the rhetoric to the contrary. As a hired (old) hand, I have my bags packed and made a Plan B. Just in case!
Don't believe what you hear about fierce competition publicized by the officials of either company. The words are legal, politically correct but not real. I observed HAL cut product lines that are weaker than BHI two months ago; and recently BHI discontinued certain programs that do not fit HAL's structure.
According to David Lesar, the future CEO of both Baker Hughes and Halliburton, job cuts are related to market conditions and not the merger. All meetings between the companies must be accompanied by legal counselors/lawyers. If the decision is made due to the merger, SEC and government will interfere. Both execs for Baker Hughes and Halliburton must tell their respective employees that they are still a fierce competitors.
It feels to me also that they are dumping the most payroll dollars they can regardless of the impact to the Company's ability to get the work done or done competently. The mindset seems to me that they will let Halliburton deal with the spiraling dysfunction ( what do they care ). They seems to be an agenda that goes beyond just dealing with the downturn.