I was one of those killed on April 1. Have been roughly treated and am still very surprised that COP has not yet leveled with the outside world that they have done layoffs (I don't mean the tiny ones in Norway, Canada, or B'ville). Just one cryptic line in CEO's public ppt to the investors that "head count reduction is in progress." What is going on here? Why won't COP announce what it has done to itself, and to us, the unfortunates? How many of us were there- tens? Hundreds? thousands? I heard values for 25% of exploration were targeted, and more than 25% of my team was killed. It would be good to know where the cuts were made, how deep, and what the totals are. Why is this remaining a State Secret?
13 replies (most recent on top)
I worked for COP for 20 years. They always favored engineers over geoscientists. If you are a geoscientist, and want a real career wheer you will truly be appreciated....GO TO CHEVRON.
It was only a bloodbath in those teams who weren't protected by managers in the cliques. Some teams had bad projects which got defunded but lost no staff. Other teams still have their budget but lost up to 50% of their people. This was about who was friends with who, in my opinion. I don't know how they justify keeping so many people on some projects that don't make money at less than $100 oil, while purging other projects. I can only imagine what people would think if they got to see profit and loss by EACH BUSINESS UNIT.
The layoffs are not important. The operations, capital and dividends funded via asset sales and debt are important. Show me the money.
In reference to - "It's not a secret to the current employees. Ex employees don't know .
Anonymous96365"
What do you mean? What do the Ex employees not know?
In reference to - "It's not a secret to the current employees. Ex employees don't know .
Anonymous96365"
What do you mean? What do the Ex employees not know?
Employees only know what the Company tells us, which is the same line of propaganda BS that they feed to the street. If you think that you know, you are definitely a few salary grades below getting actual strategic info!
But neither does the public, officially. The CP LinkedIn PR machine is still bragging about CP spending more money on unconventionals and doing other great stuff, but nothing about layoffs at all. The longer CP waits, the worse they look it would seem. Certainly the industry knows from word of mouth, but this is really not satisfactory. Looks like few if any REs were cut; G&Gs must be seen as a burden there now.
It's not a secret to the current employees. Ex employees don't know .
Unfortunately the current standard operating procedure for ConocoPhillips management is smoke and mirrors. Odd earning is not the highlight of the discussions for analyst and management. The April 30 earnings report will be telling. $1 billion reduction in operating expenses does not address billions in losses. The "reductions" are in preparation for merger / acquisition activities. ConocoPhillips continues to act like a small company in a small town (Bartlesville / Ponca City). The actions of ConocoPhillips alone will not determine the destiny of the company in a global economy and global marketplace.
Hi, these numbers on age and such - what website are you going to in order to find this information on companies? I would like a look myself.
We are waiting to see the statistics that ConocoPhillips is required to provide regarding age. From what I have seen, the ELT and managers thing that they can get $1BN in reductions by lying off their "expensive" employees (I.e., steal retirement instead of reward years of productive service) who were not part of one of the cliques, selling off everything that they can, claiming future success in failing projects (e.g., Canada and Permian Unconventuonal) and taking questionable financial write-downs while debt financing payroll and OPEX.
The numbers will tell the market, shareholders and EEOC exactly what they have done!
Well, could be. No guts, no change in Shareholder Value.
Next earnings announcement date is April 30th. More then?