Voluntary Retirement Incentive Question

As plant layoffs start to pick up more speed, and St. Paul based groups are next on the list, it seems like an inordinate number of >55yr old employees are wishing to be on "the list". Yet inexplicably, 3M does not seem to be pursuing this route at this point, nor are there any realistic options for throwing your name in the hat.

Does anybody know of a solid financial/legal/other reason 3M would choose the current route, even though it would seem to have more negative impact on morale, engagement, and finances?

They have done voluntary packages quite a number of times over the past few years, and to me it seems quite reasonable. Plus, it would disproportionately emphasize higher wage earners (i.e. fewer people cut to achieve their arbitrarily derived financial targets).

As an example, after one of the last batches, I had a co-worker who was quite miffed that they just barely missed qualifying to volunteer. I don't think 3M would have to sweeten the deal at all to get quite a few more volunteers, including some who are well under retirement age.

Comment! It's anonymous!

6 replies (most recent on top)

3M was sued by the EEOC already for age discrimination. It's bad optics and stronger claims if they're repeat offenders. At the RW plant an employee was age discriminated against by the kid of the director of legal. They gave a slap on the wrist then instantly promoted the employee 4 times after to appease them to not sue. 3M always seems to cover things up especially for how unethical that looks towards management.

Right on the conclusion there are usually not enough volunteers. Talent drain starting mid 2019

Despite what people say, when it gets down to it 3M typically doesn’t actually get enough volunteers to meet their targets. The 2018 purge asked for volunteers and gave people extra years of service credit to sweeten the pot for senior employees but at the last minute lots of people changed their minds and decided to stay. So this was followed by layoffs which cannot be just people over the age of 55. It’s easy to say you want out - but it’s just talk for a lot of people.

It would cost 3M money to offer an exit incentive. Much more than it’s going to cost to can 2500 people. These are not layoffs (even if that’s what they are calling them) since the affected employees will NOT ever be called back. 3M does not care what the remaining employees think of them. Most employees have been told at least once that if you don’t like it here, McDonalds is always hiring. 3M is much more concerned with its appearance to the world than how it treats its employees.

I have heard the age discrimination comment made before, as well, and have read some of the court documents associated with previous cases. However, it appears to me that voluntary or self-selection side-steps the potential discrimination issue. Here's an article that outlines the logic:
https://www.thehartford.com/business-insurance/strategy/alternatives-layoffs/early-retirement

I would agree with OP that it doesn't make sense that 3M wouldn't consider this as a better option. Optics matter, as does the impact on those that remain.

I had heard, but not confirmed, that 3M wouldn’t do voluntary early retirement because of age discrimination. They have done it before so I don’t know why not now. Except they have been sued for age related layoffs.

Thread regarding 3M layoffs

Voluntary Retirement Incentive Question

6 replies (most recent on top)

Post a reply