My group lost 4 guys mostly in their 40’s...there’s a guy retiring this year that would’ve gladly retired to save a job and wasn’t given the option
12 replies (most recent on top)
From a hard core "company trying to save the most money" perspective, I can see where some might think this.
But from the realistic standpoint of all the people I have worked for at ViacomCBSI don't see that they would "target" parents.
Corporate America is often cold and brutal in its tactics, but I have a tough time believing there is any sort of "get rid of parents" edict. There are way too many parents who are really good at what they do.
Older workers probably somewhat targeted - as much or more for their relatively elevated salaries than their age.
I think they went after dog owners first, then cat ladies and finally parents
there are too many other reasons to fire you. If you go to hr all the time, take long lunches, leave work early, that might count against you. Lots of other reasons. It’s also possible that you did your job just fine and were great at it, but if your boss didn’t hire you, he or she will protect their own first. Being a parent probably isn’t a factor, though I see why it should be
Looking at my group, it sure seems plausible.
It's entirely possible some people with much higher insurance costs were targeted but I also know for a fact that this was used as an opportunity to get rid of good workers who simply were not liked and who were treated like outcasts by their so-called teammates. My department was a cesspool of nepotism and favoritism and those of us who were not pets were canned, while some of the laziest rudest bottom of the barrel people who knew which asses to kiss got to keep their jobs. What a coincidence, right??
F— ViacomCBS and their non-disparagement b—s—. I will badmouth this garbage dump company until their house of cards finally falls.
This is the single dumbest thread I have seen on these boards. I'm done with this site.
I am a mom who was invited back to work “freelance” following the conclusion of my severance. They don’t have a problem with my work, but they do have a problem with my insurance needs.
Layoffs are a combination of salary (as its about cost-cutting) and what impacts these choices, after the Number issue, is the subjective. For instance, if the executive who has to decide who to cut, and they have three people of the same title making the same amount, who is that executive going to choose to cut? The f—up that goes along with every decision or the mostly flawless one that challenges the system?
If I were an employer I would get rid of those with most dependents receiving health coverage.
McKinsey made millions with this mass-firing. Severances are expensive.
Most of these roles will be re-filled with pbe.
Layoffs are more expensive than just keeping people.
It comes down to their not wanting to pay as many benefits.
I think they targeted employees with the most time under their belt
It targeted people they wanted to get rid of but couldn’t because of cause and it targeted people with a lot (A LOT) of years under their belt and it’s all political.