Thread regarding Cisco Systems Inc. layoffs

@1tyf+RYpFRMJ I am the OP (or should I say the OP that this post was replicated from). I think you are a pretty ignorant individual making a generalization like that about being 'one of the unneeded'. Our group was unbelievably understaffed and was turning away work. Our group was also doing work in one of the 'growth' areas that Chuckles said resources were being aligned to. Approximate a couple of months before the LR, I was transferred onto a hot product to be used by a huge customer in 3 massive data centers. The project was being transitioned to me by other engineers and was approximately 1/3 complete. 3 weeks before the LR I visited one of the data centers in the US and did a major install. After returning to Cisco, 2 weeks later I received the bad news. My manager told me he had only found out the night before who in his group were to be LR'ed. The decision was made at the VP level.

You may be ok now in your 40's but if you make it to your 50's let's see how safe you are then. I'm willing to bet your attitude will change very quickly.

I have lived it, and it is so very true. Over 50? Doomed, just do not make any mistakes..... - no matter how good you are. 40? Get out.

They trade in one expensive 50 for two cheap 25's. Been doing it for years. Hopefully the 25's are smart enough to hang out for a few years to get the k owledge/certs then dump this place.

It's not agism... Its cost cutting... Older people cost more due to experience... Younger college kids are dirt cheap labor...in the end Cisco bottom line is affected... Once great talent is out every one including customer will feel the pain.. except for vp who gets bonus from crap like this... And wtf is 50 billions dollars surplus doing??

there is clear ageism. Even HR folks have admitted this. The company from the top has stated a goal of getting younger. It does not mean all old folks get laid off, only that when layoffs happen, older workers are first to fill targets. I don’t believe suing would be expensive, but most lawyers think C has done just enough to avoid liability.

Not BS. The long term over 40 are mostly in services, which is kind of holding pen to consolidate for to be laid off and replace by younger cheaper more aggressive peoples.

hmmm..I call BS...I know plenty of long term employees mid 40s plus with over 15 years including me.

So don't generalize that Cisco is Logan's Run and automatically lays off 'old' people. You must have fell into the 'unneeded' category...

While the company isn't as good as it was when I started in 2000, it's still a great place to work...

@aii: To challenge it is to risk your severance package. Since Cisco pay is somewhere around the 70th percentile to begin with, most folk just don't have the resources to fight. Fighting and losing can even kill your career.

The only way to win this game is to get out of there under your own power. Sure, you don't get a severance, but if you're luck you've got a new job, steady income, probably a signing bonus, a raise, and some stock. Also, you can stop stressing every August. That last perk is priceless.

They did provide. Out of 44, one 29 with the rest over 40

"they would not give details about the profiles of people being laid off, including ages of the layoffees until we signed the severance agreement in which we agreed that Cisco was being fair, etc. and we had no greivance against Cisco and could not sue them". Not sure that this is legal. It sounds like you are signing away your right to legal recourse if you find out you were discriminated against. I believe by law they have to provide you with this information. Has anyone tried challenging this?