A lot of employees being let go are past 50 years old. Is this due to their age or their wage? Chime in!
20 replies (most recent on top)
They don't let go an expat(60+) in corporate SC from UK.
I find this thread interesting. The employees where I am located were basically told layoffs would be performance-based. That, however, is not how it appears...I have seen people being pink-slipped that are much better workers and more competent than others. I think the reason is 1) some of them have been with the company for fewer years therefore the severance is much smaller so they are essentially "cheaper" to get rid of. 2) they are local folks who are not eligible for relocation, unlike people who have been transferred here (and I am NOT talking about overseas/expat) and 3) some departments are just being basically disbanded...that expertise is no longer needed??? I have not heard of any EOIs at this point, but layoffs are not over here until next week.
Definitely age has played a role in layoffs in the BU where I worked. There have been some EOIs, but others targeted did not submit EOIs. The common thread has been age.
The best part is that the COPC hold harmless letter is not worth the paper it is written upon. No company can extort your silence for their violation of the laws, and they only provide you with a partial list of those layed off (as opposed to all of the company as required by law). So sign the letter, take your money and file your complaint with the EEOC. Word is out about the incompetence of COP management and the truth about the layoff choices, so fear of being perceived negatively is not happening.
58 and EOI. Hopeful it will happen next week :)
I guess you didn't hear about the 50% of the new grad engineers getting canned from Canada....
I did some math on the distribution of those laid off in my group in April. The average age of all employees in the group was 45. Those laid off in their 50s and 60s were overrepresented by about 30% from their actual population. Nobody in their 20s was laid off. To make a larger case for age discrimination would require access to a lot more employment data. I can tell you that COP HR would do their best to provide such data as legally required but in the most inconvenient form they could get away with. HR may be incompetent but they aren't total idiots. Those making the decisions on who gets laid off will have been well coached on what they can and cannot base decisions on and what they should not put in writing. Wink-wink.
That’s why I tell my boys to study hard and become entrepreneurs, these days of corporate business are days companies take the best years out of you and then when you become close to 45, 50 years of age, any downturn in the economy happens, boom out the door you go, and guess what, your now too old to become self employed and really hard some company will hire you with that age!!
I was laid off 6-months short of qualifying for retiree benefits.
GOOD THREAD.
I too was laid off in April, SGL 19, age 56, a manager with 22 yrs with the company. I agree with 174092; not worth fighting with the COP attorneys and risking the package vs years and $$$$$$ in a legal battle! (also had 1 it's a shame to see what they must do now in a downturn! I just hope they learn from their mistakes.
I'm 59 plus, grade 18, first time I met my new boss was to walk to the conference room! Nice greeting...wouldn't you say!
Over 50% of this spring layoffs in one of GRE groups had a JGL of 18+ or at the level of Principal or Fellow. One guy had been promoted to these levels in the last fall and then let go in this spring. None was in the management position. This group is less than 5% of the overall staff count.
Actual data provided in April indicated it was a clean house of older employees ...in a few weeks, current people affected will have actual data in hand, per their release forms, that shows age and positions laid-off. As regards pay or age ....the emails issued showing the retention of management positions in just about every organization would see to indicate the high dollar was not taken out.
Appears to be a concerted effort to (1) get rid of older, costlier employees, and (2) get rid of those who "Have the courage to stand up and say something when things aren't working". Gee, where have we seen that quote posted and brandished about? Oh, that's right, Ryan's new "Branding & Accountability" rollout. Definitely appears to be a consolidation of those with the political power at the upper levels. Would have expected that more from Mulva then the current ELT.
The majority of the employee population is older workers, so statistically it makes sense that more older workers are being laid off... There are simply just more of them.
I was laid off in April before EOI. Out of my group of 136, here are the ages of those laid off: 37, 45, 53, 56, 57, 58, 58, 60, 68. You do the math. Is anyone in Management or HR stupid enough to put in writing anywhere that the strategy is to lay off older more highly paid workers? No. That would easily be discoverable by labor law attorneys. To win in court you need more than just data - you have to show intent now. I signed the waiver. I wasn't willing to risk my 60 weeks of severance paid immediately on a chance that I could get an EEO judgment in 2 or 3 years less attorney's fees and the pain I would go through for maybe a bit more. So yes, it looks like they are laying off older workers - proving it is another matter all together.
They are honoring voluntary severances, thus employees closer to retirement age and have 17+ years for maximum severance $ are volunteering.
Both! Just like April, COP cares not about either the law nor their employees. They cut older, higher paid employees to save both the salaries and the current/future retirement liabilities.
Wage - I'm not 50 but was let go (so I was told by HR) due to my contribution to G&A Expense...