Wanted to know the layoff criteria behind 03/21, How does the individual engineers selected from the teams ? I already know the poor performances guys are still there and higher (above) performance guys laid off...
14 replies (most recent on top)
It's easy to tell. When you get RIF'ed, you get a sheet showing titles and ages. While every group within Oracle can do its own selection, the criteria from on high is "cut x%'. In my group, if you had the word "senior" in your title or were above 50, you were gone.
I've seen first hand that performance is seldom a factor; in fact, the bigger mess you make, the more likely you are to be kept, in expectation that you can clean it up.
Inside word is 10,000 world wide.
Warn notices are a matter of public record.
Oracle is in a world of hurt, and this is a cost cutting exercise, as both Mark Hurd and Safra are famous for this.
Managers were asked to provide a ranked list, criteria was up to them. I believe MOST used performance but it depends on the managers. Then the higher up execs could adjust as necessary, the list the line manager provided isn't necessarily the order the VP's went with.
Your manager doesn't always know who's been selected and usually has no input unless it's M5 or above. HR pulls the data for the senior management to review and there's some guidelines about how much you make - it doesn't have to be "above market" and you'll probably be replaced with people form India or Romania who make 80% less than US based people.
Man, every post here is so self-serving. I know it's a hard pill to swallow. Unless you were paid grossly above market, it was not about the salary.
If you were there for 5+ years, I am certain you were paid below market. Hence your modern replacement will cost more.
If your team did not get removed completely, then it was by selection: low performer, unneeded, or irritant.
Right, its about $$$, the ones that have more experience. I nothing related to performance. Remember, at the end mgrs choose who to axe.
The RIF selection criteria differ from group to group. There are both general "haircut" and selective "pruning" models. There is high-level direction which can be and has been demonstrably in some case misguided/short sighted. These can be, cut an entire team, or cut 20%. There is mid-level implementation which must included HR factors like age and ethnicity, otherwise the company is exposed to lawsuits and regulatory review. And there is some level of direct management input which may include performance and capabilities. Of course, incompetence at the high and low levers can result in very bad RIF candidate choices.
The results are messy at best in terms of accomplishing cost reductions or shifting priorities with the least collateral damage. And too often, the signal to those who remain is clear. Your future at Oracle is mostly determined by things not under your control.
I
Your definition of a "top performer" may be very different than the selection process by HR.
I believe it's absolutely about money, the older, more experienced people tend to be paid more than the newbies. You can cut less of them and keep the cheap new hires.
"IF your whole team/lob wasn't laid off, then it is by selection. That is, the low performer and/or irritant.
No, it's not by salary. Chances are your modern replacements will cost the same if not more."
This is 100% incorrect, many mgrs didn't even know their people were getting laid off so someone above them made the cuts. And I personally know of 5 that were top performers in their areas but they got the axe. Most of them were long term employees.
When you shot on your foot, do you really care which foot is better?
In 2017 it was seeing what teams could be reduced, and then a random selection from within those teams for age, gender, race, etc. We got hit hard back then, losing our top performer based off chance
IF your whole team/lob wasn't laid off, then it is by selection. That is, the low performer and/or irritant.
No, it's not by salary. Chances are your modern replacements will cost the same if not more.
how much salary / TC is at risk ?
The only reason is $$$, it's not performance based and probably selected by salary.
They are not making money, so cutting costs desperately
No other logic