Thread regarding Cisco Systems Inc. layoffs

Traffic = $$$.

Don’t think the owners would be that stupid. Websites like this don’t like having identical posts, it messes up their SEO.

The owners of this site cross post and repost all the time to generate eye-balls onn.

Guys, this is a fake post. I read this EXACT thread in IBM's layoff page, from 2 weeks ago.
https://www.thelayoff.com/t/10uRYiMv

Feel silly now for arguing with a robot? ¯_(ツ)_/¯

BS. They manipulate the layoff to include enough younger collateral damage so as to be in compliance. That might make it legally defensible, but it doesn't make it right. And it doesn't mean there is not an association between age and layoff.

What the original poster is saying, is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of discrimination, as long as the company colors inside the lines.

Of course, trying so hard to stay inside the lines means, of course it is.

Interesting about what poster said about John Doe making $145k. You imply that is a lot of money. I recall both Global Knowledge and Cisco salary surveys stated on average CCIEs were making $120k/year base salary. That was like 13 years ago! In the West Coast cloud companies are paying around $165k base+$150k in stocks for sharp engineers.

When the company has a target # of employees they want to hire to reach a % threshold who are Early in Career (EIC) then age becomes an issue. They aren't looking for a 40yo who wants to change industries from, say, finance into tech - they want the young folks. Ask Ruba who was managing the implementation of this strategy for years.

The lack of lawsuits is likely because a.) you have to sign away your legal rights to sue for a significant layoff payout increase and b.) you have to prove it with something in writing. I've seen the EIC plan with my own eyes but never had a copy of it or I'd post that online in a heartbeat.

... Older team members have a wealth of people/customer skills and contacts that only comes with experience....period.

Ain't that the truth! It's what makes employees an asset instead of a resource.

... Why should Cisco pay John Doe $145k+ when it can hire 2 Mike Does at $65k a piece? ...

Because John Doe has been around Cisco forever and has the experience & contacts to get things done. Cisco wastes time and resources bringing both Mike Does "up to speed" and they have to be mentored (baby sat) for weeks, months, years before they become as proficient as John Doe. Time is money. Cisco saved on salary, but lost on productivity.

I was actually contacted to come back because Cisco needed to do a major upgrade to a system that hadn't been upgraded in 3+ yrs. I happened to be part of the team that did the prior upgrade and had experience that Mike Doe would not have. Guess what? It cost more for Cisco to bring me back than it did to keep me because I came back at a higher wage and I got to keep the severance package. But, in taking my laptop away, I lost a lot of precious notes & emails. Sure, the critical stuff had been saved to a wiki, but oops, it didn't get transferred to the new wiki replacement system because Mike Doe didn't think it was relevant to his job, which is why he couldn't do the upgrade and I got to come back. :-)

There is no discrimination to fire people based on seniority. Employers can decide to eliminate for example engineers who make more than $180K. It possible some top engineer 29 year old can be affected, but mort likely old timers will be in that group. No discrimination there.

I dont normally make it a point of posting on here, but I have to respond to this. First, if the poster is truly working in legal, what does that say about the time he or she has on their hands? What is to be gained by defending the position? Cisco has lawyers to do that. I am honestly a bit skeptical about the source of that post, but will give the benefit of the doubt it is really from someone in legal. Second - you have to be naive to think age discrimination is not taking place in our business. Only Cisco has learned how to tow the line and keep it within boundaries that keep them out of trouble. The poster is right, the reality is they are not really doing anything illegal. Blame our legal system and the courts for allowing that to happen, and thats across the board. That said, there is a definite moral issue here. There is no doubt age discrimination is rampant in the valley. Anyone tried to get hired at Facebook, Google or other companies in the valley if you are over 40? Its not to say they dont have some older workers, but the majority are younger, and thats a fact. Look, Cisco is not perfect, but I have seen where they do tend to be a lot more fair than a lot of other companies are in what is not a perfect world. To any older worker - life does not end after 40, 50 or even 60. Keep your skills current. Dont get complacent. Keep your network fresh and growing. If you dont thats where you get into trouble. We are in an imperfect world and one needs to manage their way through it. And there are companies that hire older workers provided you have the skills, desire and are a fit for the right job. Complaining on this board will not change anything. Frankly, even though Cisco is not perfect, they have been pretty good to me. But in life and business, all things run their course. If you can not find another job that suits you inside Cisco, move on. Its a big world out there. Good luck to all of you.

I concur with OP. Cisco is running a business, not some Mother Teresa charity organization. Why should Cisco pay John Doe $145k+ when it can hire 2 Mike Does at $65k a piece? Maybe John Doe should ask for a pay cut, but I highly doubt he will do so. John Doe has a boat, a motorbike, 2 cars, a 5 bedroom house, goes on a 3 week vacation with his entire family every year, etc, etc.

Sure....what is happening is totally legal. Cisco is really really good at staying "legal" (benefit of a large legal department). Cisco has perfected the art of the age bias LR. But as other people have highlighted....it's not ethical. Cisco has thrown ethics out the window, and many other companies have followed suit. It's really really sad for an industry that I used to be very proud of. Older team members have a wealth of people/customer skills and contacts that only comes with experience....period.

What is legal is not necessarily ethical or even the right thing to do.

I would personally keep pulling up companies like CISCO on public forums whenever they factor in age in their firing decisions. Lets keep alive stories of how middle class families are affected by this. Lets tell our stories and air our opinions till we build a momentum of public opinion against these practices - public opinions and mass outcry can push for new legislation/regulations around discriminatory practices.

So yeah, Lawyer from CISCO, keep harping about this being legal. We will still voice our opinions work towards changing the law - through public opinions, starting with this forum.

If you worked in legal you would not even remotely expose yourself to this, so you would not throw limber at the fire. You are full of sh–.
I do not dispute Cisco sadly has the layoff down to a science (I pity u there honestly living with that stuff dangling over your head) but it is the only halfway reputable company I know that has institutionalized the quarterly layoff of long term employees. And it will bite Ciscos a– both ways, through talent attrition and market irrelevance.

As someone has been at both IBM and Cisco here is something to ponder

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/ibm-fired-as-many-as-100000-in-recent-years-lawsuit-shows/ar-AAF8K1e?ocid=spartanntp

(Bloomberg) – International Business Machines Corp. has fired as many as 100,000 employees in the last few years in an effort to boost its appeal to millennials and make it appear to be as “cool” and “trendy” as Amazon and Google, according to a deposition from a former vice president in an ongoing age discrimination lawsuit.

Cisco talent is obtained through acquisitions, employees with marketable left years ago.

What kind of lawyer states that someone is "100% incorrect" about anything?

"I work in Legal in one of the USA offices. "

Oh.

Nevermind.

Under the laws, the OP is correct it's not (legally) age discrimination.

But the effect of what Cisco is doing IS age discrimination. By letting older workers go who are too expensive based on their length of service and any cost of living/promotion pay raises they've earned and replacing them with younger people with half their experience, the effect is the same.

And yes, Cisco is letting a handful of young people go to maintain the illusion that they're not targeting older workers. It's age discrimination based on cost, not age.

The problem is, if all companies target workers over 45 based on cost because they can hire cheaper workers with 5-10 yrs less experience but still have "mid-career" experience, there's going to be a LOT of under or unemployed technical workers.

What will companies do when the people who write the answers on Stackoverflow stop answering questions that these younger workers are searching and finding the answers to because they're no longer working?

Just because it's not illegal doesn't make it right.

And to the comment that it's just disgruntled old-timers due to a lack of lawsuits, no, that's not it. It's a generous severance package that no one wants to give up because the burden is more on the employee than on the company and our employment agreements specify arbitration instead of lawsuits. When you're unemployed, who has the money to fight a large company with millions in the bank when the deck is stacked against you. Cisco doesn't usually hire dummies.

Cisco needs to relearn the simple fact that there’s value in experience. It makes sense to cut the fat, but leadership has lost the ability to recognize the difference between fat and muscle. We’re getting what we’re paying for, and that’s not much.

No one’s arguing that our current employment discrimination laws don’t s—. All I think people here are saying is that, regardless of the legalities, this is a clear pattern at a lot of large corporations and especially in tech. So whether or not a case against Cisco could be won in court, it could certain be fought in the court of public opinion. Public sentiment around this kind of BS is rapidly turning against big tech. It’s not too late for Cisco to start practicing some social responsibility.

I agree with you OP. I'm not a lawyer but seeing how Cisco is 30+ years old and has never had a discrimination lawsuit says it all. People are just disgruntled and to mo–nic to realize they are wrong.

You mean and “other factor” like say years of service, or time in senior grade, or above midpoint salary because of recent past high performance over multiple years....I wonder what populations fall into those favors? Hmmmm? I wonder?

It's not a toomah.

Ok, let's see how many people replying will agree with you.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

THE OP is more likely an hr shill. Facts other than age as a basis of LR is simply achieved by managers input regarding the employee.

LR's aren't based on age discrimination, but hiring is. Period. As a Sr. Manager, and now as a director, I'm constantly pressured to hire "EIC" candidates, and lower grade individuals. This is in spite of the fact that my team is expected to be highly senior / technical.

The company sprinkles every bit of colorful excuses on this, but its age discrimination.