GM won't say it (for legal reasons) but many of these layoffs are designed to rid themselves of hundreds/thousands of older workers and their salaries. With those departures GM is going to lose extensive auto industry/business knowledge and experience. How many of those workers in their 60's would be willing to take a large pay-cut in order to keep working? Many are waiting to get to full SocSec or Medicare. GM benefits by getting keeping the knowledge at perhaps only a few thousand more than an NCG. It would also provide an opportunity for an orderly turnover of knowledge. Was this even a consideration?
5 replies (most recent on top)
Easy peasy. Fire an older worker. Fire a younger worker. The government goes by the average age tally not the older people tally. Any large company can skirt the age discrimination issue that way in an en masse lay off. I hired a top notch labor lawyer in the metro Detroit area when I was illegally fired by GM IT in April of 2017. My lawyer saw that I was rehired and voluntarily retired less than 72 hours later. My firing for “ongoing performance issues” occurred coincidentally on a Friday afternoon. Federal and state labor laws were violated in my firing which was orchestrated and directed by Austin HR and Austin HR alone. My director in Austin sat silently with his arms crossed during the video conference firing staring me down like he had a ringside seat at a major sporting event. In short, I refused to falsify language in the boiler plate separation agreement I requested and received. I was repeatedly asked to lie by stating in writing that I was not disabled and was ultimately fired, rehired, and retired as a direct result. Austin arrogantly refused to run the separation agreement by GM Legal in Detroit. It was their homebrew concoction not corporates. Here is my backstory. I was off work for 15 months due to severe medication reactions following a silent heart attack and a subsequent series of strokes. I was illegally forced back to work by GM under the threat of losing my health benefits at a time when I needed them most. I asked for a mutual separation package after my thin skinned director weaponized my EVP and awarded me only 50% of the amount due in 2017. We could have been arguing over $1 for all I cared. Know that I actually took a pay cut to go to work for General Motors in 1997. I fought his petty punitive actions all the way to the top of the Austin organization to no avail and decided to throw in the towel. I was told verbally that I only partially met 70–80 percent of my expectations without any substantiating data whatsoever. I completed all of my assigned work tasks on time without rework mind you on a new team I joined as a last hurrah before retiring. For the record I have an earned PhD, a Kettering Award, a Tool Method Invention, four patents, and publications to my name. Go figure. The wording in question denied medically documented cognitive impairment from a series of strokes. It was ultimately struck from the final agreement at my lawyer’s request. GM received reimbursement for roughly 20k of my disability benefits so money actually changed hands before Austin’s theatrics. Austin conveniently ignored that pertinent fact. I took out two HR reps in Austin in the process and left a third one shaking in his boots in Phoenix. The two scheming HR reps in Austin were fired by GM Legal in Detroit for cause immediately afterwards. My younger supervisor in Phoenix mutually agreed to leave the company roughly one year later. Collateral damage can be a beautiful thing. GM Legal supported my stance on the issue from both a legal and ethical standpoint. FYI a good labor lawyer will cost you $325 an hour in the Detroit area. The average wrongful termination settlement is less than 40k nationally though. I did not pursue that route in the end. It can take over a year to get a labor case heard before the courts and there are no guarantees after the company drags you through the mud which they will. I also chose not to personally sue my Director in Austin for damages for violating my rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act above and beyond the 250k liability amount GM provides for managers. I wanted him to have some skin in the game and exponentially increase his pucker factor. I was very tempted to sue him personally based solely on principal alone. Regrettably in the end he skated and got away because I chose not to suit up. Rest assured that GM has lawyered up on this lay off and dotted every "i" and crossed every "t". HR in Austin went rogue in my firing after twenty years of dedicated and exemplary service. Based on my past experience I actually trust GM Legal to set Randy Mott’s organization straight on this matter. GM IT is not a separate company despite acting like one at times. Good luck to all those affected. On a higher note I find life less stressful since leaving GM. Note that this reply is not meant to be sour grapes in any way, shape, or form. I am glad I have left the mothership. It simply affords the reader a peak behind the cloudy veil of the HR curtain.
I was thinking the other day this is the reason why layoffs have been delayed...First I heard Jan 15th, then 22nd...now Feb 4th. I've heard from the same source that Legal/HR/Management aren't agreeing to things. I bet Randy Mott & Co. got the numbers, and Legal/HR looked and saw how skewed it was towards older workers.
IBM is in a class-action lawsuit (http://fortune.com/2018/09/17/ibm-age-discrimination-lawsuit/) for ageism. An IBM exec came out yesterday and said she was told to lie to the government about layoff numbers and their impact to those older than 50+. IBM is going to get their pants sued off them.
There's certain traits that are protected. Age, gender, religion, etc...If whatever metric GM is using (salary) can be proven discriminatory towards a protected class, GM would get their pants sued off too. A more blunt example would be if GM said, we're only firing those wear high heals to work. Not going to fly...
Just my speculation to add to the rumor mill.
As far as "that knowledge isn't needed"..I'll give a perfect example. Netflix's core business was DVD by mail. You think they laid off everyone when they invested heavily in streaming? No. Now their business is shifting to content creation. You think you'll lay off everyone? No. If you go to Netflix's site on thelayoff (https://www.thelayoff.com/netflix?sort=active) there was never, ever any layoff. Bottom performers are asked to leave the company when it's found out they s---. The good ones are kept and work on wherever growth is.
The severity of the cuts went well beyond propulsion. Does a body side, a fender, fascia, or internal components not need to be designed and engineered on an electric vehicle? The cuts were solely, and absolutely aimed at higher paying and an aging workforce. Only, you can never prove age discrimination.
There has always been a saying internally. Why pay the experienced to do something right once, when you can pay the inexperienced three times, before they get it right. This is a concept GM has taken since I can remember, and stories passed down before my time.
Would people take a pay reduction to stay? Sure. I can speak with first hand experience that salaried personnel said they would take less in bonus, to keep on everyone from layoff. They know it's not right. GM management, does not care. Support their products at your own peril. I haven't supported them since I learned how they operated in the early 2000. Not my money.
There are a lot of alternative approaches they could have pursued such as rotating people with strong technical skills from IT to the business but it seems like they are just doing a cut and not looking at other options. They don’t seem to care about knowledge loss. Saw that during the bankruptcy when a ton of expertise walked out the door.
you are forgetting GM its transiting away from that and wont need that knowledge. Thy are already behind as Waymo launched autonomous last month in PHX. They bought Cruize and partnered with Honda for self driving. The knowledge is no longer as valuable, but thats just my opinion.