Thread regarding Halliburton Co. layoffs

I told this to a young engineer that I was mentoring some time ago...he said he didn't understand why they needed the older guys like me since we were doing repeatable work. I told him us older guys are the only reason you have this repeatable work. We are the ones who put all of this stuff in place so you young guys could come in and handle it. I was laid off, and so was he. I went on to something else after 20 plus years as when I applied for anything, I either got no response or that I was "too experienced"...meaning they didn't want an older guy. Anyway, quite honestly, it had gotten old doing the same old stuff over and over anyway from an engineering perspective and the young guy was right...no reason for me to be there anymore unless they had some large projects to do. I was given the large projects and then they were canned to save money, so it was just a matter of time. I consult now from time to time and hammer who ever hires me when they want me to fix some young, dummies mess ups. I had one company tell me they wanted me to come in every day so they could "watch me" to make sure I was working. I responded with that is an extra $50/hour as I work from home and had everything I needed to do the job. He asked why and I said because he wanted me there from 8-5 in downtown Houston, and that would mean about an extra 3 hour commute to be there at those times. So he'd be paying for me to sit in the car. Anyway, the guy came around and hired me and let me work from home and said he was sorry for doing what he did after I spit out the work so fast he couldn't believe it...the work was pretty simple and repetitive, so it was fast. He said he had become accustomed to having to keep a close eye the younger engineers who spend more time on their phones than on the job. Any way, doesn't matter I guess, just thought I'd share.

(Article from the above link posted here for easier access.)

THE DAMAGE OF RELENTLESS LAYOFFS IN THE OIL & GAS INDUSTRY
Published on May 5, 2019
Paul McColgan, Ph.D.
McColgan Seismic Interpretation Services
I occasionally give geophysical talks to students in nearby universities, and I have to admit that this is the first year where I recommended that they not consider this industry as a career option. I realize that every industry goes through changes and we all need to adjust accordingly. However, this industry has a very nasty record of treating high end professionals as disposable labor. There is simply no logical argument to advise young scientist and engineers to invest 5 to 8 years in school to enter a field where they will get laid off every two to three years, and during the time they are employed, suffer constant anxiety of waiting to be laid off. This essentially puts life for these young professionals, as well as more senior professionals, in permanent stasis where decisions like buying a house or having children must be based on industry like probabilities of P10 through P90 of whether or not they will have a job in the next 5 years.
The industry may no longer need the large number of geoscientists or engineers that it once did. However, it can ill afford the traditional practice of hiring and firing highly skilled professionals with the "expectation" that they will return in the next up-tick in industry activity.... they will not. Employers and financial institutions should understand that with each new round of layoffs (which seems now to be happening on an annual basis) more and more highly experienced professionals are leaving the industry never to return, and young talented scientist and engineers see no benefit to enter an industry where there is clearly no long term employment opportunity.
There's an unfortunate trend in the industry which as of late has gotten much worse, especially with respect to resource plays. Companies use highly talented geoscientists and engineers to identify and produce new plays. Once production is considered repeatable, the financial backers figure they can squeeze out higher returns on investment by reducing staff they feel are no longer needed. Thus, the most experienced and talented employees, which also tend to be the highest paid, get laid off. Eventually, the natural variability of geology reveals itself and the wells in the asset stop producing as "expected". The company begins to perform badly, and the financial backers demand better results. The company, no longer having the necessary talent to solve critical problems, begins to spiral downward with further demands by the investors to improved returns by laying off more people. In this case, the company fails, and everyone loses.
It’s time for the industry to come up with a better employment model. I respect the need to keep costs down in an industry where margins are tight. But doing so by hiring and firing highly talented staff every year benefits no one. Companies should maintain core staff and put in place a solid long-term budget for those salaries and avoid considering those salaries as flexible line items in the budget. They should consider offering employment contracts in a manner not too dissimilar to professional athletes where an employee could expect a three-year guarantee of income. When expansion occurs, the employee needs to accept that they will likely have to work longer hours and the employer needs to compensate this time with significant bonuses. To avoid burning out key staff, the employer needs to add skilled consultants to supplement the workforce until eventual contraction (which always comes). These consultants also need to be paid well in order for there to be an incentive for them to be consultants in the first place, as many will be former senior staff with high skill levels and experience. It will be imperative to keep a good crop of talented and competent technical consultants in the industry. When senior staff are let go, it would be a good idea for companies to offer as part of the compensation package, a software license along with three years of maintenance, for their particular science or engineering skill that they most often use. This will encourage them to start consulting and continue to hone and update their skills. Consulting is not for everyone, however, I know several senior geoscientists that have retired and left the industry completely and not start a consulting business due to the initial outlay of cash required to buy their software and computer, whereas others who have bought their software, continue to consult from home, years after retirement, as they enjoy their field of expertise as well as the flexibility of work and homelife that consulting offers.
I certainly don’t have all the answers. But I do know that the industry has an unhealthy employment situation which only looks to be getting worse. This is a dangerous and expensive industry where avoidable errors can lead to the loss in the millions and sometimes worse in the loss of life. This problem has an urgent need to be fixed, and I hope the dialog here will help start that process moving forward.