When is your last day? Mine is May 23rd. But I am hearing that people who worked at 9525 have a last day of June 13. They are receiving an extra paycheck because more than 50 people were laid off at that location. However, shouldn't all of SJVBU employees be treated the same? Isn't that how the CIP is calculated? Why would this be any different?
5 replies (most recent on top)
As previous posters said, it has to do with WARN notifications and number of people at a location. Unfortunately we are not entitled to any severance; either we are paid our 60 days, or we just get notice 60 days. If you're not in a group that large, you just get the 6 weeks that Chevron per policy, not per law.
Unfair? Yes. Just legal. That's why we get severance for consideration.
June 13th in Houston
Chevron is hiding behind their lawyers and using the WARN Act as an excuse to not treat all of it's employes fairly. This is odd since it is coming from a corporation that is continuously telling its employees how they (chevron) as a company treats its employees all equally. The WARN Act is just a minimum requirement. Chevron could easily have gone beyond it and paid everyone equally.
It is totally hypocritical to tell someone they treat everyone fairly, doing the Chevron Way and yet give a 3 year employee 4 pay periods and offer the long term employee only 3 just because they were working in a remote area that did not have 50 or better lay offs.
Anyway, I guess everyone who reads this will realize that Chevron is not a corporation that walks the talk but, one that should be saying to do as I say and not as I do. When Chevron does acts such as this. One must ask themselves. Do things such as this help the company's image or hurt it. Do retirees say, yes, Chevron was good to me but, at the last, they sure did stick it to me. That the reward at the end of a long career was to be petty and take food from my mouth. To hide behind the corporate lawyers and stick to the letter of the law and not the implied intent of The Chevron Way.
What area ?
This makes sense after all. Legally they have to pay people more at a location with more than 50 layoffs. But legally they do not have to pay everyone at all locations in a business unit the same amount. From a business standpoint, it does not make sense to pay everyone extra just because you had one location with more than 50 layoffs. But it still feels unfair.