#transparency

So there’s a business analyst role that was opened on my team, and no one on the team was never told about this opportunity. Leadership decided to hire a random person for this role, without giving anyone else a chance to apply. Is this an HR issue

Is it legal for a company of this size to refuse to disclose employee expectations? They say, “Talk to your manager for details about RTO regarding flexibility” and the managers say, “Sorry, we’re not permitted to grant exceptions.” They are playing games with people’s livelihoods never mind causing widespread anxiety and stress. There must be a law which says they must disclose and be clear about what is expected of employees.

Reportedly this week's layoffs start today with impacts through Friday.

Since this company will likely try to be stealthy with the layoffs and not remotely transparent post areas impacted and potential numbers here as they are found out.

Even here we're only getting bare bones. What's going on?

There is a significant amount of uncertainty and anxiety surrounding the possibility of layoffs, and employees deserve more transparency about what may be ahead. For many, the concern is no longer simply whether organizational changes are coming, but whether they will be personally impacted and how those decisions are being made. That level of uncertainty inevitably affects morale, productivity, and employees’ ability to feel secure in their roles. You can see it in the posts on this forum.

It is difficult to believe that there is no one outside of the ELT or higher bands who has meaningful insight into what is happening or who is being considered. Even if every detail cannot be shared, there must be individuals with some degree of visibility into the timeframe or departments.

At this point, I need someone to acknowledge the situation and communicate what they can. A lack of information only creates more room for speculation, rumors, and unnecessary anxiety. I’m aware of the odd technique of squeezing people out, but WOW.

Transparency does not necessarily mean having all the answers. It means acknowledging our questions, addressing our concerns, and providing whatever information is available rather than allowing employees to have such high levels of anxiety. People deserve to know where things stand, even when the answers are difficult. This isn’t going to be a “good” 1/1.

For those who were unable to attend this morning's meeting:

HR acknowledged a significant decline in employee sentiment: overall NPS dropped 17 points, promoters declined 10 points, and employees’ ability to work in a way that meets their personal needs fell 13 points. Yet the presentation offered remarkably little in the way of corrective action. Several tactics and contradictions stood out.

1. Framing implementation as success while ignoring employee dissatisfaction. HR described the return-to-office transition as having gone relatively smoothly, citing strong attendance and no widespread parking or seating problems. But operational success is not employee acceptance. The survey showed a substantial decline in employees' ability to meet personal needs. Leadership focused on whether the offices were functioning, not whether the policy was working for employees.

2. Promoting flexibility while emphasizing surveillance and compliance. HR spoke about accommodating caregivers, illness, appointments, and weather. In the same discussion, it introduced attendance dashboards for managers to monitor patterns, investigate concerns, and involve HR. Flexibility was presented as a benefit, but the practical message was that employees are expected to comply with assigned schedules and deviations may be scrutinized.

3. Acknowledging uncertainty while avoiding meaningful answers. All info given was on past events that have already taken place. Asked about future return-to-office phases, HR repeatedly said no additional decisions had been finalized. Yet it confirmed that transitions were already underway in New Jersey and Ireland and that workplace and real estate needs were being evaluated across regions. No timeline, decision criteria, or meaningful assurances were provided. Repeating that decisions are not final is not an answer to employees seeking clarity.

4. Reducing transparency while claiming to value employee feedback. Leadership explained that detailed survey reporting would be reduced, arguing that historical results showed little differentiation across business units and leaders. No supporting data was presented. The company is asking employees to trust that feedback is being heard while providing less visibility into the results and limiting employees' ability to assess leadership performance.

5. A significant decline in engagement, but no action plan. Perhaps the most revealing exchange came when leadership was asked whether new action plans or initiatives would result from the survey. The answer was no. Instead, employees were directed toward manager conversations, empathetic listening, and existing culture and engagement efforts. After presenting some of the weakest sentiment indicators, leadership offered no measurable improvement targets, specific corrective actions, or accountability.

6. Deflecting responsibility downward. Throughout the meeting, the proposed solutions centered on managers listening, having conversations, monitoring attendance, and helping employees navigate concerns. There was little discussion of what senior leadership itself would change. The people responsible for implementing and enforcing the policies were effectively made responsible for managing the dissatisfaction those policies created.

Overall: The meeting followed a familiar corporate communication pattern: acknowledge the negative numbers, emphasize positive aspects of implementation, provide carefully worded explanations, redirect concerns to managers, point to published documents, and avoid making commitments. Leadership repeatedly said it was listening, learning, and adjusting, but explicitly ruled out new action plans.

The central contradiction is that employee feedback was important enough to warrant a dedicated company-wide meeting, but apparently not important enough to produce any new initiatives or measurable commitments.

Holy moly how bad are things really. They've always showed how separate product buckets did YoY. They completely skipped that this time. Dude was literally fumbling his words trying to justify how bad financially things are WHILE READING OFF A CRUMBLED PIECE OF PAPER JUST SO HE DOESNT HAVE TO SHOW THE NUMBERS. How shameless and brain dead are these people really. Manipulate the numbers, have nothing to show for it and then just dont show anything. Fire everyone in the ELT right now, this company is a dumpsterfire.

Steve R - sure, we shared with investors that we did some reclassification, but they get it. Steve, let me rephrase that "A month into Q1, we looked at what core parts of the business were bleeding money, and we secretly moved all of that into non core business units where that loss isn't reported because it is now non core". So no, core overall continued to drop in a big way.

When does the 2U Transparency Report come out?

Questions asked internally are not anonymous. Ask yours here instead!

My team was shown out CES results… I guess. It’s laughable, and totally on brand, that they only show very very select portions of the results now. I have it from very good sources that this is all an exercise in gaslighting, to make it appear the issues are at the team level, not the actual complete systemic dysfunction the aggregate results actually show. Yet another demonstration the emperor has no clothes and we’re lead by a group of sociopaths.

Advertise salary for all vacancies. Stop wasting our time applying for low paid jobs.

Conspicuously absent lol.

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/26684441.council-faces-scrutiny-redacted-references-l3harris/
4th November Burgess Hill

This article from The Argus highlights a developing international headwind for L3Harris, focusing on local government transparency and public protests in the United Kingdom.

The reporting outlines a growing controversy over the secret relocation of an arms manufacturing facility, adding another layer of PR and operational stress to the company's global portfolio.

The row centers on Unit 3 at Panattoni Park in Goddards Green (Burgess Hill), where L3Harris is believed to be planning to relocate its Brighton factory operations.

Local residents and campaigners from "Burgess Hill Says No to L3Harris" discovered that Mid Sussex District Council systematically redacted explicit references to L3Harris from public planning objections. Residents argue this cripples the public's right to properly scrutinize planning decisions.

The local council stated that redacting an alleged end-user's identity is standard practice for commercial applications involving "minor physical works" where the lawful use of the building is not changing.

L3Harris's Brighton facility manufactures bo-b-release equipment for F-35 fighter jets and supplies we-pons components to the U.S. and Israeli militaries. Because of this, the local operations have been the target of direct action and public protests for over 20 years.

While this localized planning dispute might seem separated from the high-level corporate scandals in Washington, it directly feeds the macro mechanisms driving potential downsizing and a talent drain at L3Harris.

The local activist group has successfully scaled its campaign, sending over 12,500 protest letters to the directors and agents of the park's developer and landlord, Panattoni, urging them to break the lease agreement.

While the first planning application was approved under delegated powers, a second crucial application is still gridlocked. If public pressure forces Panattoni to cancel the lease or if the council delays the secondary permits, L3Harris's entire UK relocation timeline collapses.

When a manufacturing facility's transition hits a wall, the local assembly workers, facility engineers, and site coordinators face immediate displacement because there is no active floor space to execute contract deliveries.

The article explicitly highlights that L3Harris is being publicly labeled as a "billion-dollar arms company" supplying controversial global conflicts.

This intense local scrutiny matches the branding issues the company faces in the U.S. over the ICE homeland security leaks. High-demand aerospace and software engineers do not want their personal names or work locations targeted by aggressive, multi-decade protest groups.

The prospect of working at a facility that draws permanent local outrage, picket lines, and negative press coverage creates an undesirable work environment, triggering defensive resignations from elite talent who can easily jump to less controversial UK technology fields.

With L3Harris's new CEO Sam Mehta attempting to steady the company's production goals following the Christopher Kubasik scandal, managing a public relations and legal transparency crisis in the UK drains vital executive focus. Facing simultaneous multi-committee congressional subpoenas in Washington and local government corruption/redaction allegations in Europe forces the company to adopt a defensive posture, typically resulting in cost-rationalization and global overhead consolidation to protect investor returns.

What does everyone realistically think is going to happen with K-12 after this reorg? At this point, layoffs feel inevitable. Leaders are leaving left and right, morale is tanking, and employees are being left to wonder whether they'll even have jobs. Meanwhile, leadership seems to keep making sweeping decisions without fully considering the fallout for the people actually keeping this company running. The lack of transparency is only making things worse. People are frustrated, exhausted, and genuinely scared for their livelihoods.

Is there actually a plan here, or are we watching things unravel in real time? Curious what everyone thinks comes next.

Je voudrais savoir comment les salariés concernés par le dernier plan de licenciement ont été sélectionnés. Est-ce que la sélection s'est faite strictement sur la base de la grille de critères et de notation ? Et surtout, qui a pris la décision finale concernant la liste des salariés licenciés ?

Really felt like I hit the jackpot after graduating and I worked hard building my skills and contributing. It felt like “they take care of me, so I will do my best to make that worth it” Was an EP for several years.

9 years later and I don’t recognize this company. No transparency or empathy. Maybe it was always that way, and all the corporate buzzwords just don’t work anymore. They really do not care how much this impacts their employees at all. I just hate it here, it’s sad man.

Under no circumstances are you to speculate when we will be eliminating your position. We will be "transparent" and inform you of your elimination the day it happens.

People have said you reap what you sow. Zero transparency in how things are run and excessive corporate greed will be their undoing.

Why is everything so secretive

Products were moved out of core business units and into non core units mid Q. In other words, as q1 progressed and it became clear that core business units were not going to show any growth because of poor performing products, those products were taken out of the core business and relassified as non core. So core businesses did not grow.

The honest cross check is the stuff that can't benefit from the shell game. Total revenue was down 4.0 % year over year and ARR (recurring revenue, subscription and support contracts) was down 3%. License revenue down 8% and professional services down 11%. So all three non cloud pieces fell at once. Cloud grew, but it is still less than half the total.

Bottom line is $1,237M vs $$1,288M a year ago. Open Text continues to shrink despite the multi-million dollar investment in the new GTM model.

Another trick- showing total revenue at negative - 1.7% which is constant currency ex divestiture figures not the actual reported -4.0.

I had no idea layoffs were coming and I know some people who were completely caught off guard in the last few weeks. This is not right.

Mass General Brigham's CEO sent a vague email to employees acknowledging urgent financial challenges. The communication offered no specific details about the required improvements or workforce changes. This follows recent layoff announcements and precedes a planned nurses' strike. Employees and union leaders expressed concerns about a lack of transparency and potential negative impacts. The health system declined to comment on the criticism.

Boston, MA

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/11/03/business/mass-general-brigham-layoffs/

Haven't you learned by now that town halls are completely useless, all good and relevant questions are ignored, and at the end we know exactly the same things we knew before it started?

https://www.thestreet.com/technology/comcast-layoffs-multiple-states-customer-losses

This article is poorly written, and directionally seems to blame those laid off recently.

But it also reveals some numbers that may be more accurate than the “Comcast” math lately. For example, it claims 634 employees cut at CTC alone, not both towers, and claims about 7500 telecom employee layoffs per CGC, but mentions counts just 1 paragraph before that which I estimated at least 10k.

The headline alone is infuriating “Comcast sends wake-up call to employees as customers cut services” which makes it sound like we have any control over these decisions.

So, my team hired 3 new people, from temps agencies, and did not tell us. On top of that, we have been being offered to go home early, due to a lack of work. There's been zero transparency about anything. It feels fishy.

Was so damning they’ll never release it?
I mean it seems to me it’s gone into the deep dark recesses of digital file cabinets stashed in some digital no man’s land warehouse.
I’m thinking beginning of the new year, and I might be wrong, there’ll be a ton of job openings? Anyone think similarly on any of this?

The real issue isn't India, Poland, or visa holders. The real issue is transparency from elected politicians, government agencies (EEOC, Dept of Labor) and corporate accountability.

Companies like BNY can move work to lower-cost locations and call it "transformation," "modernization," or "talent strategy." Employees see something different: jobs moving offshore, more visa hires coming onshore, experienced workers disappearing, and very little public reporting that shows the true impact on the U.S. workforce.

Politics matters, but this isn't a Democrat-versus-Republican issue. Both parties have supported globalization, visa programs, and economic policies that help large employers stay competitive. Neither seems particularly interested in requiring companies to disclose how many U.S. jobs are being moved overseas versus how many are actually being created here.

BNY, like many large banks, benefits from visa pipelines. The company gains access to reasonably skilled resources, lower turnover, and workers whose immigration status is often tied to employer sponsorship. In some cases, recent F‑1/OPT and other visa-program participants may also offer payroll or tax advantages compared to hiring experienced domestic workers.

At the same time, state and local governments hand out tax credits and incentives for job creation. On paper, it looks like growth and investment. To many employees, it looks like experienced workers being replaced with lower-cost alternatives. Look at US sites in Pittsburgh, Jersey City, NYC, and Lake Mary.

That's why people keep asking the same questions and with good reason:

How many U.S. jobs were offshored?
How many experienced workers were replaced?
How many positions were filled through visa programs?
What tax incentives were received?
What is the long-term plan for U.S. careers?

Until government entities and companies like BNY start answering those questions honestly, employees will continue assuming the worst. From their perspective, the jobs keep disappearing while leadership keeps saying everything is going according to plan.

Are LRs truly random? Last time my org was impacted they made a big deal saying nothing was performance based, but why would that be?

Is anyone else feeling frustrated reading these news outlets? I know that the impact is far greater than what’s being reported. For instance, it’s being portrayed as if there were only about 1,000 layoffs, when in reality, it’s much more significant. Then, I come across an article stating that Comcast is hiring 1,100 new positions. So, are you suggesting that Comcast is hiring back more positions than they laid off?

Was anyone given rationale on the “standard criteria” used to make layoff decisions? Was it performance? Compensation?

Trying to understand my role in my position being eliminated after nearly a decade as a CC.

Does anyone know if any of the folks that took the VRSP if any were hired back after applying for open positions? You can’t apply back after 1 year, here it’s been 1.5 years since your VRSP. You apply for the exact same position, outstanding reviews 4’s & 5’’s, went nice and beyond, built great relationships internally and externally a UHC Alumni for 16 years at UHC, . A Referral is sent on your behalf and your qualifications meet every aspect of the job role, and this is what they reply via email:

Although your skills and qualifications are impressive, we have identified other candidates whose experience more closely fit the specifications of the position.

This has happened
Not once
not twice
But multiple times

This just goes to show UHC truly doesn’t stand behind their own “culture values of Transparency”.

Shame on them!

1. Profit Above All
2. Total Transparency, Zero Privacy
3. Loyalty Is Compliance
4. Healthcare Is a Commodity
5. The Narrative Is the Truth

LOL, "double-speak" at its best

Im pi---d as he-l at the lack of transparency. This week has been rough as sh-t on my mental health. Im doubling down on looking for a new job after this mess.

The fact that I had to come to this board for basic info like Dates/times, severance info, etc is fu--ing crazy.

The problems at SAS aren't limited to one team or one bad manager anymore. Communication has broken down, and we can no longer trust what we're being told - if we're being told anything. It's either lies or total silence. No wonder many are trying to make their own escape plans.

Is it only me? I know we had threads on this but still...

Comments here say a rolling inoffice average may afffect ratings or promotions, but vacation time is added to the data later. One senior person said they could not access their teams dashboard. If this number matters - employees should be able to see it, check for errors, and know how leave is counted before reviews are decided.

Has anyone been shown their own average or a written policy?

Fender has issued a WARN notice for its Corona, California factory, affecting 533 employees. The company states this is a temporary closure for holiday inventory, not layoffs. Employees are expected to return in the new year. This marks the first time Fender has used a WARN notice for such a temporary shutdown. The company emphasizes this is part of normal annual operations and aims for increased transparency.

Corona, California

https://guitar.com/news/industry-news/fender-says-warn-notice-ahead-of-corona-factory-closure-is-part-of-normal-operating-procedure/

Do you really think a company who's been struggling for as long as fiserv is going to be selling a positive story when publishing the results when they've scheduled it for the same day as the midterms?