Thread regarding Fidelity Investments layoffs

Bonus ?

For all of you who complain about Abby and her greed ... what do you think of the 20% bonus most associates will receive next week in addition to the 10% Profit Sharing we receive in January ? I don't that that is greed at all.

by
| 2859 views | |
Post ID: @WoueMdX

11 replies (most recent on top)

Too bad they eliminated the most talented (and underutilized by new mgmt) in the “reorg.” It’s a joke.

by
|
Post ID: @WoueMdX-9uip

More women were let go because L&D was mainly a female club. Unrelated to that, there was some serious skill lacking in L&D for what Fidelity needed to do. That statement about “interviews just for show” is most likely correct.

by
|
Post ID: @WoueMdX-8cvw

Correction: the average age of the 16 people eliminated is 50.

by
|
Post ID: @WoueMdX-6woj

"I wonder if managers knew about this additional funding when making the determination for what each eligible employee received, because unfortunately I’m sure that might play into how much some people get. " - they didn't, neither did the HR reps. It was a pleasant surprise for all of us. I am glad they did it. I am also glad they didn't do it for people already getting paid well.

by
|
Post ID: @WoueMdX-6sad

That’s right—They just cleaned house in a division of PI by eliminating 40 jobs for a so called reorg...and no surprise, a lot of those eliminated were older female employees. They kept maybe 3 of the oldest tenured females (I suspect this was to keep the average age let go at roughly 39), but the rest got kicked to the curb with the farcical reorg with job eliminations. And hey, they created 40 “new” roles and so magnanimously allowed those eliminated folks to apply for the 40 new roles claiming they had first crack...yah, sure. (they not only refused interviews to some who applied, but they were advertising externally within a week) Their explanation? They claimed it wouldn’t be fair to everyone if they just placed their existing, loyal employees in new spots automatically and then filled the rest. HR scripted loophole b---s--- to get around the obvious agenda.

You know what’s not fair? Having the f-ing rug pulled out from under you after busting your a-- to do a good job there for many years, only to be told (via group conf call!) your role is eliminated so they can be “fair.” What a sh--show.

They filled 20 of the 40 new roles with eliminated ppl, but it was clear to any sentient person these 20 were already hand picked ahead of time, so the interview “waves” as they called them were just for show. And worse, they ultimately put millennial 30somethings in most of the roles—many of which were more senior roles—and the few of the original more experienced ppl were demoted and placed in more junior roles. They think this will make them more agile and transformative (to use a few b---s--- bingo terms): “Ooh look how hip n cool we are..so agile blah blah”

No. Simply calling yourself “agile” and “transformative” does not make you so. It makes you clueless and redundant. Walk the talk.

The entire process was a sh--show from start to finish. Reality check: As much as Fidelity leaders publically tout “Fidelity’s people are our greatest asset.” Newsflash—Their people are the most dispensable. I’ve been around long enough to know that no place is perfect. But this? This is by far the biggest sh--show I’ve ever witnessed, so never make the mistake of thinking you’re indispensable....especially once you reach your 40s. You’re just an “A number.” Full stop.

Good luck.

by
|
Post ID: @WoueMdX-5udt

Older women have been let go. It is not exclusive to older men.

by
|
Post ID: @WoueMdX-brl

All the saved money for purging the “old” white men in recent years is benefiting owners and senior management. Also the new re-education (Pol Pot) into tribes , squads, and tee pees will only purge more through attrition.

by
|
Post ID: @WoueMdX-krs

Fake news. For years salaries were frozen. If anyone got the full bonus, they were of the chosen one’s. And even that is doubtful. No, ownership is greedy and clueless.

by
|
Post ID: @WoueMdX-mxc

PR damage control.

by
|
Post ID: @WoueMdX-exv

If only it was an actual 20%, instead of just an additional 20% bonus funding.

So if I’m in a 20% bonus pool and made 100,000 a year, at 95% funding I would be eligible for 19,000 bonus. Of course your manager and VPs can take your funding down based on squad and personal performance.

I wonder if managers knew about this additional funding when making the determination for what each eligible employee received, because unfortunately I’m sure that might play into how much some people get.

An extra 20% funding could mean an additional $4,000 at that salary. No complaints that they’re actually passing this along to employees. I’ve only been here for one other “Christmas” bonus in my 13 years (most spent on WI which we are told we aren’t the money makers so don’t get the bonuses) and that one was a flat $750.

by
|
Post ID: @WoueMdX-qfx

she's probably relieved she won't have to give 20% bonuses to the 15+ year tenured males with higher base salaries that have been removed from the equation.

by
|
Post ID: @WoueMdX-hxv

Post a reply

: