Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

Many businesses have cut dividends and survived, even come back strong. Watson doesn't want to cut dividends to not be the first CEO to do so in 25 years. His arrogance is more important than your job. The layoffs will continue.

I have been through a lot of downsizings, bankruptcies and lay-offs with other companies. Chevron would like it to appear as if they are not discriminating against age. Watson said it, paraphased " We can get employees(back), we cannot get stockholders back if we cut the dividend and they leave. That is the bottom line, paying the dividend from free cash flow in 2017 at whatever the price of oil is.

@1Gufy, are you still here making comments no one is interested in hearing? Get some work done, else you'll get fired next.

@1Glzt, and what exactly are you doing? Oh, wait, I forgot. In Chevron, hypocracy knows no bounds...

@1Gegv, you are the kind of person who always has a comment to make, even when people don't care to hear what you think. The other stood corrected, enough said.

@1Fwsa - you truly are a complete idiot. Sorry, I just couldn't stand by, read your no-dimensional drivel, and not say something.

@1Fwsa - ?? Either you're trolling or a complete idiot. But yes, I do not and never did think that Reagan or GHW Bush were socialists. It was sarcasm, which means I intentionally wrote something to be taken ironically because I assumed that the reader would be able to recognize that. If you have anything to say about the actual content of the comment, please do it. Otherwise I will assume that you agree with it. OK?

@1Ftwr - So you changed your stance or now stand corrected? Good.

@1Eylz - Dude, do you seriously think that I thought that the conservative hero Ronald Reagan, the man who Republicans believe singlehandedly took down the Soviet Union and started the Reagan Revolution, was a socialist? Also, look at the context, I was defending age discrimination laws. How in the hell could I think that Reagan was a socialist? Why would someone defending age discrimination laws call the most conservative president of the late 20th century a Marxist? @1Eeuo and probably 99% of the people reading this saw it for what it was. Stop trolling.

"Sometimes I forget", my ass. You are like so many that when called to task, turn around and pull out the sarcasm card. Same thing goes for those who pull out the satire card.

Yes, @1Eeuo, the comment about Reagan/Bush was meant as sarcasm. Sometimes I forget that on the internet no matter how obviously sarcastic a comment may seem, some one will interpret it literally. Maybe I should have included a smiley face. I agree that the abuse of discrimination laws is bad, though the blame probably lies more with the juries who decide the cases than with lawyers who are just doing their job. Any system for making and enforcing decisions will suffer from some abuse, and whether discrimination lawsuit abuse is a big problem or is hard to say, since it's largely subjective. In any case, the purpose of the law is to prevent employers from discriminating in certain ways, punishing them is only the enforcement mechanism. And I feel that it does serve it's purpose. If it were legal, would some Chevron departments just decide to lay off everyone over 55 who is not in management since they're going to be retiring soon anyway? Probably not, though it might happen at some companies, and I personally appreciate it that a company would have to think twice before it would do something like that. If a few undeserving people take advantage of the law, so be it, I'll accept the trade off until someone comes up with a better system.

Very pointed comment, 1Enjr, and BTW, 1Epii, I believe that 1Enjr's comment about Reagan/Bush being socialists was sarcasm. However the legislation or acts passed during their terms are in question, not the presidents or even their respective Congresses. i.e. Some claim Nixon was more liberal/democrat in his actions than many dems. I think that the bigger issue is the ABUSE of such discrimination provisions simply to gain a buck by lawyers and disgruntled ex-employees who deserved or were due to be laid off or even fired. After all those folks are the ones most likely to try to game the system. Those discrimination protection provisions and acts, seem to be more utilized by unscrupulous employees and ex-employees and their lawyers than the ones with honest claims.

@1Enjr - Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were not Socialist/Marxists. So I'm sure your understanding of age discrimination is off base as well. If you want to know what a Socialist/Marxist really is, look no further than who is in the White House today.

They laid me off so you couldn't sue them.

@1Dxav - I think you have some misconceptions concerning age discrimination. First of all, it was not invented by the courts, but rather by Congress in 1967 and signed by Lyndon Johnson. It was amended in 1986 and 1990, signed by those notorious Socialist/Marxist presidents, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. It does not prevent companies from firing or laying off older workers if they are paid more or don't perform their jobs as well, nor does it state that anyone is entitled to a job based on their age or years of service. It does forbid employers from laying someone off because they think that because at their age they will retire soon, take more sick days, or cost the health plan more. This only makes sense, just because an employer thinks that an individual is statistically more likely to do something, it doesn't mean that they will. And, just to be clear, the law was created because this was (and in some cases still is) a problem which can make it difficult for older workers to get or keep a job in a competitive environment. Just like other forms of discrimination protection it is designed to put all employees and candidates on an equal footing, so that they are evaluated for the contribution to the business. Some people have an issue with all discrimination laws, but do we really want to go back to the time when an employer could say to an African-American, "I know you have an advanced degree, but we only hire your type for the mail room?" Or refuse to hire or promote young women to important positions because they figure they'll just get pregnant and leave? I'm not old enough to remember the former, but when I started my career the second example of discrimination was commonplace and done openly. A good summary on what age discrimination actually entails can be found at http://www.workplacefairness.org/age-discrimination, if you're actually interested.

I don't think filing an age discriminate lawsuit will be a productive venture for 95% of the people getting the axe. There might be only a handful of folks who just might have a case. I can attest to Chevron deliberately manipulating the layoff statistics by age group. They compile the stats for the wave of employees being laid off, then right before the scheduled termination date, the younger employees or those in a protected class suddenly are selected internally for a job opening. If the statistics were required by law to be updated again and mailed to every terminated employee, then the age discrimination angle will be blatantly obvious. This is the game Chevron employs to circumvent the truth.

So let me get this straight. One employee can and will do the same job as another employee who you have to pay much more, is retiring sooner, and takes more sick days, most likely. Which employee would you pick to keep, as the employer? This is not a kindergarten soccer team, boys & girls, this is the real world.

Agree with the posters below who say that the severance is generous, much more than most companies and you would spend more than that + grief, with lawyers. What are you guys even thinking? "Age discrimination" is a Socialist/Marxist styled and fabricated ideal to begin with. There is no such thing other than in the courts. The only reason the concept/laws(Act) even exists is it became a way for bitter entitled employees to seek revenge and for lawyers to profit. Unless it is under a written agreement or contract, why does an employer "Owe" someone a position simply because they are older and have been doing it longer? That's like thinking the world owes you a living. Now you can claim they are ungrateful jerks for doing that, and correctly so, but that's also called the cost of staying in business.

50+ y/o ex-employee.

Any chances for a solid #agediscrimination lawsuit?

I am in my mid 40's and everyon between the age of 18 to 30 looks the same to me, I assume once I am in my 50's everyone 45 and below will look like a newby, everyone over 40 is in the same legal bucket. You just might think there are less legally defined Older Workers in your organization than there really is. Take your severance, keep your dignity and focus your energies on your future not your past. If I get through alpha I get to prepare for what ever chevron needs to cut in 4Q-1Q to meet cash demands and possibly not get a severance next year. the future might show that the RAE and the alpha ROM was the best deal available. But that fear is damn sure not enough for me to express interest in getting a package but if I get it I will make the most out of whatever new opportunity arises.

From my limited understanding the people selected to receive severance need to represent the demographics of that organization. If your org is 50% of people over the age of 40 the sum of those individuals severed should represent 50% and 50% should be under 40. I don't believe it needs to tie out exactly as the right people need to be left in place to fill the jobs but generally speaking you should see a close correlation to the orgs overall demographics.

If you are 50+ you've probably been here 30+ Yrs and making a high salary. It's not age discrimination it's the cost of labor. Leave with dignaty. Take that year severance and travel a bit. Then consult the rest of your career.

No, no, no. You want attorney Jackie Chiles. He is the best of the best. Just google him.

Call Carney Shegerian, he's the best guy in the country for Age Discrimination litigation. He'll evaluate the claim for free 310-860-0770

This year my BU went through a ROM in which most employees were clearly over 55 years of age. Sprinkled in the mix of those affected, were a handful of 20-40 year olds. To make a long story short, all the 55+ folks were let go and almost every 20-40 year old were given jobs through last minute selections in a PDC or were offered a job internally. The game being played by Chevron to try to beat the rap of age discrimination is to sprinkle in a few youngsters so the demographics report doesn't look obviously lopsided. But just after publishing it and making it part of the severance packette of documents, they give the youngsters a job and send the older employees packing. Just another example of The Chevron Way.

The class action lawsuit route will not be too fruitful, only lucrative for the law firm (as almost always is the case).

I assure you, their severance packages are far more than they can get from a class action settlement. Years of litigation so a law firm makes money is about all a class action suit we'll get them.