Do managers have any say in it? I'm asking because my manager is still pi---d about the people we lost in the last round of layoffs. I haven't asked him directly about it, but it seems that he had no say in who was going to be shown the door. That makes very little sense, since who could know better who deserves to be cut than the direct supervisor?
8 replies (most recent on top)
Managers have some say but not enough if, as one person said, those closing in on pension/retirement age. You have to sign a waiver to receive your monies, which will prevent a suit.
The state of NC won't investigate age discrimination for the fact the banking industry, as a whole, is revenue for the state. It's a cr---y way of doing business and will never change. Too many buffoons running the circus show now. Be happy if you're selected in the RIF, you'll get out a regain your humanity! Good luck my freind.
I was impacted by this RIF - I was with the company 16 months. I did lose lending authority; however, the two exceptions were determined to no longer be valid exceptions and TRM was "calibrating risk policy efforts. Meanwhile, credit risk would never respond to me or my manager regarding lending authority status. I honestly believe this is why I was selected in the RIF in addition to short tenure with the company. The QC/TRM/ACES is an absolute joke - inconsistent with their findings and create findings that do not align with their own policies. The lending authority process was another disaster as well - the modules/tests actually had incorrect answer choices and numerous issues. My manager brought this to light with credit risk and TRM and was basically told to be quiet or face consequences. I am very happy to no longer be apart of this joke of an organization. I had wonderful teammates, but the organization is an absolute joke.
Impacted by the most recent round of RIF - I heard individuals who did not meet meaningful impact criteria on year end scorecards, individuals with little tenure with the company, individuals who were on a performance improvement plan, and in lending - individuals who had lost lending authority were selected in the most recent RIF.
@1bck+1hAqwWdB Yes! However, Bill Rogers is the king of this game. They throw in enough 20 something’s to make it legit!
I noticed the same thing regarding the very pronounced skew towards older employees. I have to admit, I am surprised Truist has escaped any widespread litigation around age discrimination. A friend in HR told me point-blank they felt they were at risk for their lay-off practices.
Former SVP, now Happily working elsewhere. There were “analytics” provided via “a back office team”. Curiously they skewed toward those closing in on pension/retirement age.
Quite political to say the least. Job performance was not a major factor.
My experience was summed up as “either they get cut, or you and they get cut”
Truist cares.
"How is it determined who gets cut?" Simple - They call everyone back into the office, then check the bumper stickers on the cars in the parking lot and make cuts accordingly.
Well, the rule for who gets cut used to be: "Is this person hBBT or hST? If hBBT, cut him/her." Now that they've purged the company of hBBT employees, they'll probably just cut anyone who is unpopular, ugly, or boring. You know, like the cool kids did in high school.