I'm from ATO and I'm hearing such a thing from my supervisor that it's up to HR/Upper Mngt/other BS Mngt that selecting people to be surplused it's NOT up to direct supervisors. Is it really true?
How do they know which people need to place on surplus?
18 replies (most recent on top)
Directors go through the exercise of rating and ranking, that goes to upper leadership. HR and upper leadership make the calls. They use the rating and ranking to help decide who goes.
Fred and Wilma typically with some input from Barney and Betty if needed.
Your a&d's have nothing to do with the top secret rankings they keep on their desktop. Basically they tell you how great you are to your face, then rank you lower on their secret wish list, which goes to the top, In the meantime they will rank their favorites higher, since they are forced to rank on a bell curve basically. The top decide to cut you while your immediate manager says they had nothing to do with it, and act how surprised and shocked they are. It's kind of like the theory that only one person out of several has a live bullet loaded in their gun on the firing squad when they execute the prisoner.
The system here is nothing short of dishonesty and deceit.
It’s called “ratings and rankings”
Direct supervisors complete a form, and they give a score for several categories.
Performance is one of them. This may or may not be straight forward.
The Leadership category is the another one that they use to sway the algorithm towards whoever they want gone/want to keep. It’s all just subjective CYA type questions.
Upper managers uses the word leadership as a code for popularity.
for nonbargained, the area manager will stack rank their reports. Those rankings are what is used by Director and above to make decisions. If your Director says "I have no idea who is going to be on the impact list" they are flat out lying. I've seen it take place in ATO and have had AM's say off the record that this is what happens
If one is close to the MR75, or close to 30 years, they will try to eliminate you either by surplus or termination.
Once you get your asbestos underwear on (30 years) they find someone else to mess with.
Your goal should be to have your deuce not know your name, have zero work friends (not enemies either). Be nice to customers-always. Do a good job.
Reciprocate the false "you matter" and loyalty.
Smile and cash the checks.
To some degree, rank & yank is a factor. But look at those that have already been released. They want the older employees gone. If you have a pension on the books, more weeks of accrued vacation, and years of compounded raises, you are a target. It’s also a sneaky loophole to practice age discrimination. I have also been told that legal has final veto authority over the list. Those in a position with a potential case against the company are often spared.
Everything you hear from your immediate higher ups is a lie. Don't trust them. They will tell you how much they need you just so that they can get your job details to pass on to either someone off shore or to one of their "friends" to save their job and do away with yours.
There are some guidelines from HR. The Director and AM will make decisions based on employee's past performance reviews, and overall worth to the organization. All cuts are based on number of people from finance. All bargained employ surplus is straight line seniority. Low man goes.
We decide on the value/cost. Attrition has been very good to us. These decisions have been made years in advance.
2020 will be a year like no other.
What about union employees. Is it strictly by seniority or is there another factor.
The Area Manager has direct input working with their Director when selecting surplus candidates. If you're AM is telling you otherwise, they are worthless and should not be in that leadership position. The only time your AM and Director are not involved is when the whole group is being eliminated.
@eao+13nARoYY“Director of the group is given numbers to cut, then that flows to area managers who many times are either told who would go OR are given a number and they all go back and forth on who they can least afford to lose. After that meeting they have the list.” This is almost 100% accurate. L1 managers (most typically in supervising roles over union employees in core/center/construction/DEG/BS) in ATO/AFO are not consulted with during surplus announcements/activity. If they are, it’s done strategically and with great care by an area manager who is trying to lessen negative impact to the business, but even that puts both the L1 manager and AM in an unethical situation where they would be directing surplus activity against employees reporting to them directly. The BAU process today is designed to take those individuals out of the decision making process to eliminate animosity in the workforce. If you are a level 0 employee, 95% of the time, your manager and area manager are not the reason you would be impacted by a surplus event.
For management, as someone mentioned below...the L3 (Director) is given the number they need to cut, and together with the L2 (Area Manager) those decisions are made.
Anyone stating anything different is incorrect. If you were told by the AM that they had no input, they lied to you.
Even at this company, it would be kind of wacky for a manager to have no say who on his team is let go.
For non union they have a web tool and the manager ranks you. Your team along with everyone in the surplus pool gets ranked. Lowest ranked is cut. Doesn’t matter what your amplify ratings are or what you do. It’s however you got ranked in the web tool for that surplus event.
Director of the group is given numbers to cut, then that flows to area managers who many times are either told who would go OR are given a number and they all go back and forth on who they can least afford to lose. After that meeting they have the list.
Just had my Amplify feedback with my A.M. the other day. She brought up the surplus from Jan 2019 and said that if she were told that another 1-2 people would have to go this year, that she would not know who to cut. Sounds like this is direct involvement rather than the "HR were the ones responsible" talking point that she used last year. The garbage she spewed last year around surplus time was just more misdirection. Typical AT&T Area Mgr.
To certain extent - Yes.
IN the last round of ATO Surplus/ Outsourcing - In many organizations Director levels were consulted.