Can someone give me an answer as to why challengers are protected besides 'optics'? I look at my team and 2 out of 5 staff are challengers. They are both bright individuals, but they still need constant guidance and naturally lack experience. I just don't see a reason why if you want to become more efficient that you automatically keep the people that are contributing the least.
18 replies (most recent on top)
If you are a challenger, I don't think you have a future in a dying industry. Go get an MBA and leave the industry.
If what I heard is true, it really is just optics. It's hard to recruit young talent and compete with tech companies for that talent (what Bernie wants) if they feel they might get let go within a few years. Still don't see how this isn't considered age discrimination.....
All good comments. These actions by large corporations are why we don't advance very quickly. Bring in (or keep in this case) the new people and then continually repeat the same mistakes (lessons learned) that we made in the past because we lose that collective experience. Keeping too many challengers will doom us to the same fate we've always suffered.
Because most challengers will not qualify for retiree benefits or bp can squeeze a few more years before it becomes obvious and they leave bp.
No one goes back does the look back to see what cost savings were actually achieved. What they focus on (and then move on and forget about is) the cost savings of letting go long tenured employees that are replaced with cheaper labor locally or in a GBS local. The difference is the savings that is celebrated.
They aren't cheaper when you need three of them to do the work of one experienced hire and they still don't do it right due to lack of experience. I was a new hire once and looking back, I didn't know anything. It wasn't until I had about five years experience that I was really contributing. Most of my colleagues feel the same way. I work subsurface so the learning curve might be different in other departments.
Why are challengers protected? Because they look good in short skirts and tight jeans! prancing around the office asking questions like "why don't we go more green?" Can I get a raise for agreeing with you? lol
The challenger program provides Bernard with a solid pipeline of “eager young talent”
Just a guess ... but by any chance was old Bernie a Challenger back in his day???
bp is screwed now
wont exist in 10-20
You’re completely off on cost of challengers and ill informed. A US challenger is UK H equivalent in terms of costs.
Ninininininininini.
Because it will be increasingly difficult to convince top talent to work in the energy industry. Think about it ... frequent layoffs, bad stock performance, bad public reputation, diminishing benefits, and increasing competition from exciting companies like Google. If we can’t get young people to work at bp, then the company is screwed in 10-20
years. We are basically begging these Challengers to stay because we need them.
Sorry you couldn’t be more wrong. Challengers are much less expensive than a 20 (10 or even 5) year experienced employee. Goodness how can we have so little common sense in our workforce. I don’t have the time to list the MANY reasons why a challenger is less costly. Go thru ur benefits handbook. Do salary analysis. Just because we move a few kids around from department to department and a couple of moves does NOT make them more expensive than longer term employees.
US challengers are very costly. Likely more than a UK experienced hire so I don’t believe the cost argument fits.
because they are the indoctrinated.
Oh goodness. Because they are way less costly than the more experienced employees. Use your common sense...efficiency is NOT the goal. Surviving as cheaply as possible is the goal. But....to do that a good plan is required and BP management (higher tiers) are incapable of creating and executing such a plan. As usual it will be chaos and ineptitude....and so on and so on.......BUT perhaps a white knight will come and buy all that’s left of our company. We still have some good assets....
Best bit is, they're the most likely to look for an exit in a couple of years given post-Uni people these days have realised that loyalty to corporations is laughable.