First round of Sharp layoffs will begin Monday June 30th, with more rounds most likely to come soon after. They will disguise the layoffs as putting people on “administrative leave” as the attempt to avoid legal or financial obligations (like severance, WARN Act notice, or unemployment claims). Very shady.
209 replies (most recent on top)
@2b6 that doesn’t seem right. Those low performers must be making a ki-ling with all that YOE.
The higher ups didn’t pick names out of a hat. They would have had to get some information somewhere to make decisions on who to let go. Here’s what happened in my area. The top performers were laid off have only been around for a few years while the low performers who have been around for over 10-20+ years stayed. Manager also low performer, been around long so they all know each other on different level.
TOP performers that are cheaper OR
LOW performers that are expensive.
It was an obvious choice who should be let go but it didn’t turn out that way.
Sharp and team would have benefited all around and get better return on investment keeping the top performers. Manager handpicked who got to go on chopping block.
@1gf Curious what you learn. Seems like in CA with 'At Will Employment', these cases would be harder to take on and prove wrongful termination. The climate is unfortunately, so toxic now with scrutiny of every single minute of the day, even for high performers. There's the sense that we're all disposable, that we can do nothing about it, that leadership has a tremendous amount of power and it is their word against ours.
@1sq same for my dept. They went for the low hanging fruit.
@1rf Same here. Manager had to have input in my team. Those picks were too obvious.
@1rf I wish our management had been involved in the decision-making process to eliminate frequent sick callers, and weekly ILV users, instead of losing top-performing employees. Employees who actually wanted to be there and work. What a shame.
@1qm Management definitely had input in my area.
@19e Management did NOT know. Selections were locked down at higher levels. Management had to just sit and watch...Angrily. Managers did not pick who stayed and who were dismissed. It's a sad time. I'm sorry for all who were let go.
Am I reading this right? A manager will get 14 weeks while staff that's been there for over 20+ years get 6 weeks?
CEO, President Executive VP, Senior VP, CEO/Senior VP 26 pay periods
VP 20 pay periods
Director 13 pay periods
Manager 7 pay periods
———-
Staff
Less than 1 year - 1 week severance pay
1 - 4 years - 2 weeks
5 - 9 years - 3 weeks
10 - 15 years - 4 weeks
16 - 20 years - 5 weeks
20+ years - 6 weeks
Job market is so bad. Got so many people trying to go for same position. I hope you all find something.
@1fd The purpose of the reduction was cost savings. My guess is they let some new / lower performers stay because they are cheaper all around.
@1gf I’d like to know as well. Looks like the difference is
CEO, President Executive VP, Senior VP, CEO/Senior VP 26 pay periods
VP 20 pay periods
Director 13 pay periods
Manager 7 pay periods
———-
Staff
Less than 1 year - 1 week severance pay
1 - 4 years - 2 weeks
5 - 9 years - 3 weeks
10 - 15 years - 4 weeks
16 - 20 years - 5 weeks
20+ years - 6 weeks
@1g2 I've reached out for legal advice. They will be contacting me on Tuesday to hear the story.
Is it true about the severance breakdown between staff & management? That much of a difference?
@1fd you should seek legal advice if low performers got to stay on because someone playing favorites.
Ugh almost been a week since the lay off and still breaks my heart! Dedicated 8 years and in return I get 3 weeks severance. Just doesn't sit well.
@1fd Got it! Part of your team is still there but they kept low performers. That doesn’t add up. Sounds like bad judgement call.
@1f9 when entire teams are laid off, of course both talent and low performers are gone. That’s a no brainer. Low performers got to stay on. Didn’t take long to know the favorites after I started.
@1es what they are offering is definitely bullsh-t! Especially seeing the huge difference in severance between staff and management.
@1f0 They said that to minimize legal ramifications. Low performers always go first during a lay off. And one of this size where entire departments are cut will usually include great people.
@1ep manager flat out said it had nothing to do with performance which made absolutely no sense! Why shouldn’t it be based on performance?!
Union Tribune article..."For those who lost their jobs Monday, Sharp said that it is offering career transition support, severance packages, extended health care coverage and other resources." WHAT THEY ARE OFFERING IS BS!
@196 Performance definitely played a role, don't be naive. As others have pointed out, entire departments were cut purely for cost-saving reasons - in those cases, performance wasn’t much of a factor at all.
@1dt that's what I've been wanting to find out from the group. Class action lawsuit? Especially the severance, if someone decides to take it..not even enough
Anyone looking into legal action?
@196 They were handpicked by management in my case. I can name 4 that provide little value that’s still employed while the ones laid off carried a lot of the weight. There is nothing in place that would’ve made these poor choices.
Anyone know what the selection process was? They said it wasn’t based on performance but it should have. Wouldn’t Sharp want to keep talent and let go the ones not really performing as well? Seems like they would get better return on investment.
We worked so hard and dedicated so much to Sharp. This is just so cold and depressing. Many of us have been there for a long time. This isn’t the same Sharp I used to know. New leadership really su-ks! Spent so much on Epic just to have so many consultants on payroll putting bandaids on it. Would have rather not get YOE increase to keep my job.
@15g wow that’s really management’s severance package? They couldn’t have shared a little more with the worker bees ☹️
@168 Hard to trust leadership after all this. They should have been more transparent from the start instead of giving the impression things were fine and organization was growing.
@16f wow hopefully no more layoffs. People left are going to be burnt out.
@16e You might be right as far as more layoff since the bill was approved. Im sure other hospitals will be affected.
@168Just curious if I am alone or not on this…I got the impression from the Town Hall that, pending the outcome of the vote on the Spending Bill in Congress, Sharp could be faced with more tough financial decisions. I did not hear them say it outright but it left me thinking the more layoffs could come in the future. Not trying to spread rumors since it is only based on my interpretation of the discussion.
@se Not sure where you're getting your info. TAC was certainly impacted, as many IT teams were. There is no additional planned layoff this year. Sharp was very adamant about doing this all at once instead of rounds and rounds.
@11b I get it that you are angry and you have every right to be. But please stop spewing your lies that you dont have a clue about. You want someone to blame, blame the higher ups.
@se Where did you hear this? We were told this was the only round of layoffs. I’m in TAC and we lost 11 people.
@139 This is for management severance ...
CEO, President Executive VP, Senior VP, CEO/Senior VP 26 pay periods
VP 20 pay periods
Director 13 pay periods
Manager 7 pay periods
@yv for anyone seeking lawyers to consult about this, please share with us all. Thank you!
@139 where was this leadership severance nreakdown mentioned/determined?
@12k is that what management and above get for severance?
@12k Weeks unfortunately. This severance package is not enough. Will have to go on unemployment if I don’t land something soon. Employment itself will roughly be $1600-1800 a month.