Yes the emails really went out today. No the money is not as much as it has been for past buyouts. Stop griping and stop expecting to be paid out for voluntary retirement under a policy that determines payout for severance. Just because they were similar in the past doesn't mean they still are. SAS owes nothing extra to people who have been here for decades.
80 replies (most recent on top)
Not sure how representative my sample is, but, for the record:
Of the 8 people eligible that I know, plus myself, only 1 is taking the package. He was already planning to retire in the next month or two.
Call us greedy or entitled or whatever, but 6 months just isn’t enticing enough.
We can't go back to 2018 or 2021 where the offer was more generous of up to a year of severance. Things have changed and SAS has changed. Even with 6 months payout in 2025, that's already better than some big tech companies that give just 3 months severance. You also get that $500 a month healthcare subsidy from SAS until 65, and didn't SAS just give y' all a bonus March 1? SAS will honor the VRBP and you will get your money for sure. The federal employees that took the DOGE promised buyout have yet to receive anything since there is no actual line item in the budget to pay them, so they may not even get anything. Consider yourself lucky that the good doctor is still kind.
Perhaps some rounded ballpark numbers may help.
Suppose it costs $200K per person to do a full buyout or a layoff — including salary, healthcare, and administrative costs.
Suppose SAS wants to buy out 300 employees, and lay off another 300. That would cost $120M.
It’s important that SAS remain profitable every year, because that is its most marketable feature. SAS’ profit margin has likely declined in recent years, because revenues are flat while costs rise with inflation.
Suppose SAS’ profit margin is 4%. 4% of $3B is $120M. In that situation, SAS can’t do 600 buyouts and layoffs; it would eat up all the profits.
These are just rounded ballpark numbers — but SAS may be looking at numbers in that same ballpark.
If so, that would explain why the buyout was cut in half. They can’t afford a full one.
It would also explain why max severance was left at 52 weeks. From SAS’ viewpoint, that would be a feature, not a bug.
If larger severance causes fewer people to take buyouts, that’s fine; SAS can’t buy out more than a few hundred anyway. (Note prioritization by seniority enables SAS to limit this buyout to any number they like.)
Also, if larger severance entices only people who are near retirement to take buyouts, that’s fine; those are the highest paid people anyway.
This might look like money wasted on people who will leave in the next year anyway. But it’s not wasted, if SAS doesn’t want to wait for that year.
SAS may or may not sell or IPO in the next year. But an April 30th deadline prepares that option.
“Be careful of what you wish for, you might get it.
Well, for those that asked for it, you got it. Are you taking it?
This could be the last VRBP offer. SAS will just layoff after that.”
I’m waiting. Every month before layoff is another paycheck. A layoff gives me twice the payoff. Given the current situation, I won’t take a layoff personally. And I’ll be much better positioned in retirement.
Be careful of what you wish for, you might get it.
Well, for those that asked for it, you got it. Are you taking it?
This could be the last VRBP offer. SAS will just layoff after that.
I recieved an IRBP (involuntary ;) in 2018 and got a year's salary. Before you break out the pitchforks remember you got to work another seven years which I would have gladly chosen.
The job market has changed, especially in the last four years.
I was told the original (2018) VRBP also included a duplicate (of what you got earlier) bonus payout.
“SAS just gets less generous with each buyout, that's all...don't overthink it!”
Not quite, it seems. I took the 2021 offer along with a good friend who was old enough to have taken the 2018 offer. She described the two as identical.
SAS just gets less generous with each buyout, that's all...don't overthink it!
At SAS, we care about our employees and our employee experience. We've read the posts on "thelayoff.com", and we were moved by your requests. Now, for a limited time only, we are offering a Voluntary Retirement Buyout Option. You asked, and we listened, because SAS is truly an exceptional employer and the best place to work!
I agree that 6 months isn't a strong enough incentive to those ambivalent about retiring soon, so I'm left wondering what leadership is thinking? Is the greatly reduced VRBP offer simply meant to send the message that (1) the outlook for SAS has changed considerably, for the worse, and (2) we need to shed workers, preferably our most expensive (salary and healthcare) 60+ folks ... and, because Dr. Goodnight is a compassionate man towards his employees this might be his message that it's time to leave and he's offering an "honorable" exit?
I would not be surprised to see the severance policy updated soon with less generous payout.
already left and still would not be old enough to qualify for these VRBPs anyway, but probably will also retire a little earlier with no packages. definitely envious of those of you who can take the option. especially with all the current uncertainty in the markets and government cuts. good luck, all.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/millennials-gen-z-childless-money-finances-massmutual/
To take the VRBP or not to take the VRBP, to go or not to go....
It's a nice position to be in to decide either way, especially when you're already 60+.
I voluntarily retired years back with no severance or package. Only regret is not doing it sooner. No one can tell you how much time remains on your game clock. Never assume today's health is a prediction for the future.
So, if you are on the fence, take that leap of faith. Whatever it might be. There is life after SAS, assuming you were not foolish enough to make SAS your entire life. If you made SAS your entire life, perhaps some self reflection is needed?
Good luck to all!
Waiting for the incoherent MAGA(OT) take…
"and now they're thinking of raising it from 67 to 69. They keep raising the goal post for FRA."
But it's important to remember that the law raising it from 65 to 67 was passed more than forty years ago and we're STILL two years away from the leading edge (1960 babies) of first people that have to wait til 67 for FRA.
They don't really 'keep' doing it - they just did it once and phased it in over 45 years
Any increase to 69 would likely also be phased in over decades. (Which is why it really doesn't make any sense as a solution to the temporary short term solvency issues)
"These are the people who would be working to fund future Social Security payments."
They are also, of course, the people who necessarily be producing all the goods we retirees will want to be consuming with our Social Security checks and our private accounts. The 'demographic day of reckoning/smaller share of workers' argument isn't really about Social Security tax rates.....it's about the sustainability of a large retired class. It's about what percentage of the society will be producing the consumption of the whole society.
That said, Japan has been there for 30+ years and demonstrated that the demographic problem has non-catastrophic solutions. And they're not even a high immigration (the easiest solution) society.
It's great to plan for the worst individually and assume mean testing/benefit cuts, etc. But in actuality SS/Medicare are the third rails and the level of financial chaos needed to get our political class to the point of doing either of those things in the time horizon of current (near-)retirees .....THAT level of financial chaos would also decimate your private sector investments.
To me 'I should plan for 25% benefit cuts' is about the same as 'I should plan for my 401k permanently losing 25% of its value'. Either will give you a more robust balance sheet, but both will introduce a lot of stress around completely uncontrollable factors.
Anyway, take my pre-coffee off-topic morning rambling with a shaker of salt. YMMV.
Social Security Full Retirement Age (FRA) used to be 65 then they raised it to 67 for people born in 1960 and after, and now they're thinking of raising it from 67 to 69. They keep raising the goal post for FRA.
Has there been an announcement or something of the like?
To count on Social Security is wishful thinking. If you're on it already, yeah, you're probably in good shape. But to counter the other poster...
This country, and many others are in demographic decline. People are choosing to be "dog moms" instead of real moms. According to some of the college admissions folks, we are coming up on a "demographic cliff" of 18 year olds; after the 2008 recession, the birth rate dropped because of fear and uncertainty. Colleges that aren't top-shelf brands are struggling because there isn't as large a population of incoming students. Many are closing.
These are the people who would be working to fund future Social Security payments. Immigrant families were intended to make up for this demographic decline, but that plan is on hold for the time being.
Long story short, don't count on getting out what you paid in. Expect it to be means tested, and the payouts limited. All those reading this, who are still employed by SAS, will be above the mean.
The age of 67, more or less, is what the Social Security Administration calls “full retirement”. However, benefits continue to increase at 8% annually until age 70.
That’s the way they named things. Don’t ask me to explain my government 😂.
Raising the retirement age would be logical, but it would require our politicians to have political courage, and to work together toward a common goal. In our divided country, I don’t expect that anytime soon.
However, my retirement plans assume I will only get about 75% of what I was promised. I guess they will means-test me, or reduce my COLA, because those routes are politically easier.
The job market, especially for tech skills, stinks right now. It’s particularly difficult for people over 60. Even young people are making hundreds of applications.
So if you take the buyout, make sure you are financially ready to retire. Otherwise, keep working.
I'm seeing posts saying that they are talking about raising the age at which you can get the full benefits from 67 to 69. I thought that you had to be 70 to get the full amount.
"t is quite possible (aka probable) that the retirement age will be gradually raised up to 70 in order to help deal with the solvency issue"
The kicker is that the 'solvency issue' essentially resolves itself before those 'gradual raises' would even kick in and save a dime. It really is only about a 8-12 year window beginning around 2034 where there's a serious shortfall, before a critical mass of we boomers die off and bring it to a much more manageable shortfall.
When they pitch raising the age as a solvency fix they're trying to slip one past the voters. The most painless 'fix', of course, is more immigration.
Social Security is not going to be dramatically reduced for people who are currently on it or are near starting it... that's just fake news cooked up to try to scare people. It is quite possible (aka probable) that the retirement age will be gradually raised up to 70 in order to help deal with the solvency issue... it may also be the case that they will add some sort of means-testing in order to make sure that those who need it most get the full benefits.
Let's face it folks - our gub'ment (both parties) have totally sc--wed us by spending the money that was supposed to go in Al Gore's "lock box" - that combined with building a 35 trillion plus national debt have insured that we will have some rough times ahead - probably very rough - before (hopefully) it gets better. However you feel about DOGE - the truth is - something MUST BE DONE - we can do it the hard way or the HARDER way (not doing anyting until the system crashes).
So if you are 60 or over - and probably 55 or over - Social Security will remain pretty much as you expect it to be for the course of your retirement. That is unless the system crashes on the weight of the debt, and if that happens - we will all be in the bread lines, and you can kiss our republic good bye.
"The government" in this case means that a majority in the House of Representatives and a majority in the Senate and the President all have to vote to eliminate or drastically reduce those two programs. In other words, there needs to be an overwhelming mass of elected officials who decide simultaneously to end their careers in order for that what-if scenario to manifest.
A more likely scenario is that those programs are modified gradually in a way that strengthens them. Modification can be a combination of slightly reduced benefits, slightly increased taxes to fund them, slightly later ages to qualify. Medicare costs will reduce drastically if people will just stop overeating themselves into chronic illnesses.
"RSC Budget Proposals:
The Republican Study Committee (RSC) has proposed raising the retirement age for full benefits from 67 to 69 over an eight-year period beginning in 2026."
Heck No!!!
AI gives more detailed break down of SS.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Current Projections:
The Social Security Administration projects that the combined Social Security trust funds will be depleted in 2034, at which point the program would be able to pay only about 78% of scheduled benefits.
Potential for Cuts:
If Congress fails to take action to address the long-term solvency of the program, benefits could be reduced by 17 percent in 2035, or earlier if the trust funds are depleted sooner.
Proposed Solutions:
Some proposals to address the solvency issue include raising the retirement age, reducing benefits, or increasing taxes.
RSC Budget Proposals:
The Republican Study Committee (RSC) has proposed raising the retirement age for full benefits from 67 to 69 over an eight-year period beginning in 2026.
Trump's Plan:
A second-term Trump administration could propose eliminating the employee share of the Social Security tax, which could lead to the trust fund being exhausted sooner, potentially in 2025 or 2026.
Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLAs):
Social Security benefits are adjusted for inflation each year through COLAs.
Current COLA:
The Social Security Administration expects a 2.5 percent COLA for 2025.
Earnings Limit:
In 2025, if you're under full retirement age, the annual earnings limit is $23,400. If you will reach full retirement age in 2025, the limit on your earnings for the months before full retirement age is $62,160.
"would you still make the same decision to take the buyout now?"
Not really seeing how taking or not taking 6 months of pay now is all that big a factor ether way if the separate benefits you plan on using and basing your life on for decades were to get cut.
That said, it's hard to see how they do any significant benefit cuts to Medicare or SS with a 1 to 3 vote majority in the House. Musk's chainsaw can (and will) make it run a lot more inefficiently with a lot worse customer service, but actual cuts are a different matter. (Medicaid users, however, are thoroughly scr*wed )
What if SAS provides a pile of gold (aka stock) to each employee at the IPO this year? Would you regret taking the buyout then? What ifs...
I asked AI for you.
Q: What are the chances of social security being cut in 2025 or 2026?
AI: While Social Security is currently projected to continue paying full benefits until 2034, there's a risk of cuts in 2025 or 2026 if Congress fails to address the program's long-term solvency, with potential benefit reductions or changes to the retirement age.
If you play the “what if” game you’ll work until you die. What if you died tomorrow? /s
What if you take the buyout now but in a few months or next year the government gets rid of (or drastically reduce) Social Security and Medicare benefits (both of which you paid into throughout your working life), would you still make the same decision to take the buyout now? Would you still be ok without Social Security and Medicare? What do other people think?
If you are between 60-65 and you like your job and the job is not that stressful and you're still good at your job but you're not too confident financially about retiring yet then don't take the package. You can ride it out for another year or two or three and if you get layoff then you may get 6 months severance like the buyout. If you're ready to go this year then take the buyout.
The younger ones would love to push out the older folks but you do what is best for your situation and don't let anyone scare you into it. Healthcare (and dental/vision care) will certainly cost a lot more than the $500 a month subsidy and the rest will come out of your pocket.
"I don't want to read your "worry" too literally. If you have a concern about whether you can afford to retire, then consider retiring, and taking a low-stress part-time job doing something that you absolutely enjoy, just to pad your wallet for a while. After the end of the year, you can re-assess, and mean time you are getting paid (even if low) to do something that you enjoy."
Disagree, unless you really dislike your job. As someone said in another thread, you'll almost certainly get paid longer if you keep working and don't take the package.
I don't want to read your "worry" too literally. If you have a concern about whether you can afford to retire, then consider retiring, and taking a low-stress part-time job doing something that you absolutely enjoy, just to pad your wallet for a while. After the end of the year, you can re-assess, and mean time you are getting paid (even if low) to do something that you enjoy.
The layoff severance can easily change quickly by merely updating the policy. I would not be surprised to see the payout shorted to 6 months max.
While 12 months was the payout previously, 6 months is consistent with what is being offered to federal employees. HR can thus correctly argue that 6 months is the current market practice.
I’m 63 years old and 90% sure I’m taking it. I’ll likely worry a little bit about money in retirement but I doubt we’ll see another package in the coming years. Six months of salary is far better than the current retirement offering.
How about the rest of you who qualify? Are you taking it? Why or why not?
But until they change the severance policy, people will likely make the reasonable decision to just continue working. Layoff means a much bigger payout and prior to that happening, they remain employed and drawing a paycheck.
To me, offering 6 months makes no sense. The only ones taking it, for the most part, will be those who planned to retire within 6 months of so anyway.
The fact that this VRBO is less $$ makes perfect sense given SAS’ current revenue picture, and the fact that the first offering was over five years ago — a time in which it was thought Viya would be much more successful than it has. Anyone 60 or over, with decades of experience in business or tech should be positioned to retire, even if that means significantly downsizing.
AFAICT the Triangle real estate market is still strong, so sell that big house in Preston and realize your new dream in a smaller footprint rancher out in Lizard Lick. Trade that Bimmer for a truck, plant a big garden and be happy growing old. The SAS we knew, loved and built has played out. JG is offering an unprecedented third exit. Your next HR action won’t be voluntary.