It seems clear that the intent is to force out higher paying positions and people and these are the older experience people. No one individual can win against the corporation and their pile of cash and lawyers and political payoffs. But a class action lawsuit might be able do something that laws seem weak on and individuals can’t fight alone. Does any law firm have the courage to initiate this?
20 replies (most recent on top)
@1bsa+1fhThS8K No matter what Tracey G. and her HR gang tells you, all the HR and Legal team doesn't work for the welfare of employees but they are only employed to serve and protect the interest of mgmt. including their bad deeds and poor decisions.
Up until 2015-16, I never heard of anyone with more than 10 years with EM being put on a PIP.
Only 3 year or less that were not good fit were PIP’d.
The PIP system was weaponized to target older employees in that downturn.
Department Managers had targets to meet for how many RE employees they exited.
One supervisor that was targeting older employees would instruct project teams to stop giving letters of commendation to his older employees because those undermined his efforts to PIP them.
@2qvx+1fhThS8K
And HR is defending its tactics.
Of course “there’s no data”, you have worked very hard to hide it. The point is that sometimes there’s a leak… just wait.
The key is not to look at the data from each year separately - each year HR make sure the “mix” of ages and other criteria is defensible.
Age discrimination becomes obvious when you compare how many MPT people over 50 or 55 were put in PIP in, say 1997-2016, and compare that with 2020-2022.
You will see a dramatic change because the PIP has been repurposed. It used to be mainly about young recruits who were considered “not a good fit for the company”, but then it has become a tool to target the “expensive” workers over 52 and especially 55 who couldn’t be included in the layoff.
That’s where the smoking g-n is.
There’s no smoking g-n because the data just doesn’t support the ideas of some people on here. And HR makes adjustments when they notice a trend for a specific supervisor or manager where there looks to be some bias. Sometimes it’s when a supervisor comes in and unconsciously drops all minorities, all women, all men (yes that’s happened with both male and female supervisors) and elevates another group. Not in an obvious way, but just moving everyone a little bit where when you look at it as a whole there’s a pattern. It’s likely to happen when new supervisors who show a bias compared to the last one and to existing ones who continually under rank a certain group.
Is that an ideal way to do it? Absolutely not. But it’s also pretty hard to remove unconscious bias, particularly from an old school company that is trying to move away from the old white boys club mentality. So they’ll have to force it for a long time until the problem is corrected. Again not ideal, but that is the point.
Reverse discrimination. Minorities “given” preferential treatment in ranking meetings. Have you people looked around this mf lately? The cognitive dissonance would be laughable if it wasn’t just so plain sad.
I guess LDSers were minority at some point.
But that is probably not true anymore.
Proliferating all over the place.
Like-minded nepotism virus. Look out!
@bub Not every boomer is a reactionary. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are two out of countless examples of boomers standing up for progressive causes.
By contrast, some of the biggest racist/sexist/ableist douchebags are GenX and millennials (ex. Richard Spencer and Stephen Miller.)
@OP If you don’t have hard evidence that age is the primary reason people are being let go, you don’t have a case. Even the much-discussed ageist IBM email isn’t sufficient to prove systemic age-based bias in that case, and an email like that is the proverbial “smoking g-n.”
I’m against ageism and discrimination in all forms, and I’d love to see EM have their heads handed to them in court, but there’s not much chance of that here.
Fun fact: EM is asking for the age of job applicants by dressing it up as a citizenship question. Why would they need that information?
I am the one that went to HR about the manipulation of the rank list after the ranking meeting.
I am a Supervisor, was in the ranking meetings, made sure all my team members were ranked correctly. Upon the final issuing of the RG in each employees RG, I was shocked to see that one employee had leaped far over several others that had been ranked above him.
I went to HR for clarification about how a poorer performer leaped over the better performers after the ranking meeting.
HR guy explained that HR makes adjustments after the ranking meetings and moves minorities to achieve certain profiles of distribution.
Moving a person up the rank list above people that outperformed them is reverse discrimination. HR guy said this is done by HR for every rank list.
Welcome to Annandale!
Someone with the smoking g-n needs to have the courage to be the whistle blower. There’s got to be an email, memo, or conversation showing the true purpose of the PIPing an layoffs.
Agree about the reverse discrimination which has been going on for years. Just look at the new hire targets as well….when we actually hired people other than KLTC or BTC.
Doesn't matter how well you were doing or what vector you may have been on. You may have been on a 3-year path to CEO and it wouldn't matter.
When cuts are made for economic concerns, it stands to reason that a large number of the cuts will be among those who have been with the company for a very long time, and as a side effect are probably 'older' than some others.
If state law allowed, they'd go straight down this path. It doesn't. There are very specific percentages that must be adhered to or kept 'under' but rest assured they get every high salary they reasonably can without breaking the law.
It's just business.
Does anyone know the outcome of the EMRE senior who did file a suit. That lawyer is in Houston. He might appreciate some more people contacting him. I should. Pip’d at 55, but was on an upward vector for two years prior and receiving recognition awards.
To the kl0wn who said below:
When you questioned HR, did you use the Klieg lights? Waterboarding? Bamboo fingernail?
You a silly goose, friendo.
Get off the bottle next time you go to HR.
Age discrimination is Federal law - no matter what a Texian might say.
But the lawyers have been scrutinizing the PiPing closely, like legal pipe pigs.
They say it's all good - from California to Jersey to Baton Rouge.
Unfortunately, most of these lawyers are just out of law school.
And not the best of the schools, must say.
They are working very precisely within the boundaries of state law in every action. I can't imagine any lawyer taking such a case.
Boomers to everyone else: pull yourself up by your bootstraps
Boomers facing any problems of their own: waaaaa, I’m discriminated against.
GD old@$$ snowflakes
Age discrimination combined with reverse discrimination.
I have encountered absolutely dangerous Managers elevated to that level for no other reason than their race or gender. Nobody seems to mention this.
There have been cover ups of huge mistakes by such falsely promoted people. Also after ranking sessions, HR manipulates the list to move up minorities and females above the people that everyone in the rank session agreed outperformed them.
I questioned HR about this and was personally told by HR that HR reviews the output lists of ranking meetings and makes adjustments upwards to achieve their desired “racial distribution”.
Seems illegal to give ANY person a performance ranking based on their race or gender.
It's part of the reason they do the PIP bleeding and a perfunctory layoff, mostly geared toward younger set. Makes it harder to point to a singular event for a class action and puts the burden on individuals with varying concerns and stories, for any coming forward. Lacks cohesion. It would be doable but take a higher risk and more effort.