Thread regarding AT&T layoffs

Absolutely Not, Not in not all cases is performance a factor with surplus to employees....Maybe in the old days but not anymore. I am a Manager and have had top performers impacted. Was it my choice? Absolutely not.....There are many other factors involved....I think most have been outlined above....

Mass layoff in 2015? How about mass layoff in 2002 with Bellsouth got me, like a fool I went back, another mass layoff in 2010, got me again, it never ends

@1caa. Do you actually believe those that wanted to retire with severance and got it met the criteria that you listed? Maybe that didn't happen in your department, but it certainly happened under my VP so stop accusing others for not knowing how the process works across the company because there isn't a consistent method of deciding who is let go.

Not sure how it is in other orgs. But poor performance was not one of the criteria. I know people with exceptional ratings that only the top performers get and were outsorced. A lot of sycophants and nepotist were saved. Insecure managers need their egos stroked. People smarter than them that speak their minds make them feel insecure so they get picked to go. Issue is sooner or later you are just left with a bunch of yes people and no one to do the real work.

Rankings for layoffs are do e on 4 criteria (in writing): performance (heaviest weighted), skills, leadership. Ability. YES THE FIRST ONES TO GO WERE LOW PERFORMERS. Age is never put in writing as a negative if you are older, and disability is a positive to avoid layoffs. If you think performance was not a key and most heavily weighted factor then you obviously were never a decision maker for layoffs and have no clue how they are chosen - typical blue collar types, gossiping about issues they know nothing about.

What I don't see discussed that often are why some folks that are very good at their jobs are laid off. I have seen this a couple times with L2 Project/ Program Managers that were very good at their jobs, one of them you could certainly make the argument was top in their peer group...but the issue was that this person, while highly knowledgeable and efficient in their job duties, was a flaming a-hole. Condescending to others, and arrogant to a point that was unprofessional on calls and in emails, etc. To the point where I am sure this person's Boss had to deal with a lot of shrapnel coming their way due to the way this person went about their business. So here while here you had someone highly effective, smart, and capable, ultimately there were let go come surplus time because they were a pain in their Boss's a$$. At the end of the day, that is the most sure fire way to get your name on the list when your Boss needs one.

The mass layoffs began well before 2015. Every time there’s been a merger/acquisition, SBC has turned around and laid off thousands going all the way back to the SBC/Ameritech merger about 20 years ago.

@11yrSE8Z-hni
“ It would be interesting if someone who chooses employees for surplus would post here. What are the guidelines you are given? Do you have to justify your choices? Are the AMs free to choose or given names?”

In my case, I believe how it all goes down is this:

1. ) Force Reduction is projected due to current or future budget cuts. Current budget cuts are due to overspending on Project Builds or approaching allocated financial ceilings allocated for projects.
2. ) MVO to targeted workgroups to reduce headcount and identify individuals willing to leave.
3. ) Identify individuals that won’t go along with the current direction workgroup is heading. Raise expectations where they are unbearable to try to force their acceptance of MVO.
4. ) Target high seniority individuals. Reason, least likely to be affected if surplused. High seniority that are older are preferred. Home situation considered, grade school children, children in college, single income.
5. ) My AM asked how long I planned to stay and my projected retirement plans. (I believe this factored in decision making.)
6. ) Provide A&D that supports decision. My AM put in my exit A&D that I was unaccepting of change. Yet he would always say he liked me because I was “old school” and held old school values and wasn’t a yes man. My work load performance was lowest in workgroup. Yet I was given work areas that did not have growth. He cited lack of work knowledge yet he moved me into a new job function I was given no training. Just learn from my peers which each person did the same job function different.

In the end it came down to age, seniority and least affected by decision. Above L2 you are just a number. At L2 level you are just the sacrifice thrown into the volcano.

The criteria of choosing which employee to surplus is going to vary across the company so people are just posting what they have seen. In my area managers had a lot of flexibility for coming up with the criteria to categorize the staff into groups targeted for surplus. It was not surprising to see people planning to retire being given a surplus even though it was announced that volunteering was not allowed. The appearance was that managers had to take turns when the surplus numbers came down and there was no attempt to target low performers across an entire organization. I never saw age by itself being used as a criteria nor did I hear of talk of salary. It was simply headcount that mattered.

@11yrSE8Z-hni obviously isn't aware of the real trend going on. As a young worker I don't agree with this trend. I get a lot of mentoring from these people.

Go visit other buildings and count the silver haired. They're not plentiful. The ones that are here know their stuff. Plus they can explain things top to bottom and the logic behind the decisions driving them at the time.

What can you do?

Respectfully disagree but especially with the 50+. I think it just comes down to the fact that att has a higher portion of older workers. On the adea surplus report that I saw, there were only 2 people under 40. Some people in their 50s were surplused but some in their 60s were retained.
Should there be a rule that once you get past a certain age, the company has to provide you employment until you decide to leave? I don't think so.
I don't like to see anyone lose their job but all age groups are in this together.

It would be interesting if someone who chooses employees for surplus would post here. What are the guidelines you are given? Do you have to justify your choices? Are the AMs free to choose or given names?

Sorry but it had nothing to do with poor performers... I saw plenty of best workers we had that were laid off! Get your facts straight before spouting BS!!

@-vyc, yes promoting chief of staff people, it's beyond sad, as they don't have the right backgrounds, skill sets, and general knowledge base, plus not manager material. From what I have seen of these people, they roll around like a gang. We call them "The 'M'aggot Patrol", just change that 'M' up. And with that, we all know what I'm saying. Piss one of them off, and they will collectively come down on you with their wrath, and cut you off to their boss whose boots they lick.

Here are the prerequisites for surplus (mgmt) now that the lower hanging fruit has been picked.
Title
Location
Salary

Poor performers yeah right. No other company I have been uses surplus and selling of employees like att.

Promoted Chief of Staffs don’t have a clue as to how to run a department. See more and more if these playing the part. So sad. Useless id–ts.

You are incorrect that in 2015 mass layoffs began mainly with poor performers. Not in my department and I was not surplused. It began with those who did work in a collaboration zone followed by 50+, etc.