Whas there any methodology in selecting? What kind of criteria was used?
9 replies (most recent on top)
In my department, they seemed to fire all white Native born Americans and kept poc/internationals. I doubt it was a racist move but perhaps a move to eliminate higher salaries as well as being cognizant/hyper-aware of discrimination lawsuits for laying off minorities.
So, was just informed that today is my last day at MTV News due to greater ViacomCBS layoffs. Mergers, amirite? Anyway, if you have any social/audience dev job leads, that would be cool.
Anony is correct
This round was about informing svps who on their team was too expensive and costly to keep. Most eliminated people had more than 10 years and many were director and above. Its about the benjamins y'all. Some eliminated people/positions were critical but not understood by consultants.
Like others have said it is a sinking ship there.
"Someone who started in 2002 probably started at higher salary than someone who started in 2016 even for same/similar work."
Someone starting in 2002 definitely had a LOWER starting salary than someone who started in 2016 but they used to give raises. Much bigger raises. Salary increases have been capped at 3% for the team, and even raises attached to promotions have been minimal. So the person hired in 2016 will never see the escalation in salary that the 2002 hire did, but their starting salary was higher.
I don' t think there is any ONE overriding criteria used but I do see through the people I know let go that length of service and salary were probably a part of it.
For example, if you have four workers, same title, similar responsibilities, the one who has been there the longest likely gets let go due to higher salary.
This industry has been declining for years, and starting salaries have quietly been dropping. Someone who started in 2002 probably started at higher salary than someone who started in 2016 even for same/similar work.
ok, will give you a general anecdotal strategy that had been used in past layoffs according to a higher up the chain person I knew and trusted me to tell me about some of it. this is Viacom side. In certain layoffs, supervisors or mangers are asked from their bosses to submit X number of people to let go if needed. normally this was done during a time when the department, which was a very large dept, had become basically bloated as they were going through technology upgrades, which in turn did not need as many people once completed. generally they were asked to submit 6 months or longer in advance of layoff/downsize. Now these were smaller and internal to the division to bring budget down. they ALWAYS were smart in end about spreading it across different age groups/time with company/gender/ect to avoid potential wrongful termination cases. IE: ageism.however, they used this opportunity to rid themselves of "problem " workers, ones who spoke up, people who had health issues and took a lot of time off through STD, and LTD, it was personal, a lot of those. Then there were layoffs that only a handful of top people were aware of, these were larger in scope, NO input was asked of lower management. these came from corporate, there seemed to be no criteria other than they had a target number of salary to be cut. Often, HUGE mistakes were made in who they laid off, it simply was spitting out numbers, not how great or bad your work was. once again they ALWAYS spread it across the age groups/time with company/gender/ect to avoid potential wrongful termination cases. the mistakes were often so bad on who they left go, key people, that they were ultimately offered job back as they sorted it out. these layoffs, consultants were used. anytime the consultants were used, managers, supervisors, directors had to lobby to get that person back. same went on when management were let go, unless a contract was involved, they too often let wrong folks go. some of the layoffs made sense, others were strictly budgetary, leaving us behind to just do more work/expanded responsibilities at same pay, the WORK often remained, amount of people left had to figure a way to get it all done with less staff. now with these newest layoffs, the merger layoffs, consultants were used on long term layoffs to reach the projected savings to budget, highly doubt much input was asked of upper management at all towards lower food chain workers. rest assured though, they will always cover their a– for wrongful termination cases by spreading it around. I only write all this out to let you know, IT DOES NOT MATTER how good of a worker you are during these merger layoffs.also, covid related layoffs is like a blank check to shed workers, all bets are off.
CBS....cousins, brothers, and sons are safe
The methodology was: GET YOUR SH$T and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
This is a dumb question. The people who know the methodology are not coming to this website to tell you.