I don't like this at all. A great colleague has been notified of a layoff.
I am always in disbelief when I hear that such capable and talented people are laid off, while the slackers get to remain here.
What is the main criterion for these layoffs?
9 replies (most recent on top)
I think they should be obliged to disclose to an applicant for a new role how stable or risky the position is in the event of a time like this. I know OU positions may always get eliminated based on performance of a that OU but I'm also sure they know which roles are inherently more stable because they keep the lights on and which are just corperate nice to haves that will be the obvious first candidates for elimination if needed. I also think such less secure positions should be paid higher, because they are kind of like contract jobs with some severance. Many people would prefer higher risk for higher reward while others value stability more. I think it should also be possible to openly ask HR about the current level of security of your role e.g. on an annual basis so you know where you stand and can plan your life and career accordingly. I know it's also naive wishful thinking but maybe I needed some that in my current mood.
Lmaooo to the person complaining about DEI, I hope that sh*tty attitude gets you laid off :) . Medtronic is majority white majority male, sorry they are trying to change that and you feel oppressed
Firing is a performance issue. A RIF, as someone noted here is based on the belief that someone can do your job for less, your role is primarily overhead and not needed and/or you are too expensive.
RIFs are not performance issues. There are many of us who are high performers and are rated exceeds/exceeds year after year.
Criteria is: do you get paid more than someone else? Can we get someone cheaper? Can we offload your job to someone else who is d-mb enough to work more for less money and a higher title? That's pretty much it.
@bik+1mcjIN8i They don't say performance issues because then it could say PIP vs layoff and reference potential for future employment outside of MDT. They kept mine as a "macro environments" meant we needed to cut headcount/roles/business lines etc etc. Granted why me versus the anyone else is a valid question, but wouldn't be answered other than I think I was more expensive than other folks on my team.
If they are not going to say what the selection criteria is, they should not say “It’s not based on your performance”. Actually, performance is what the decision should be based on and if it’s not based on performance then a reasonable question is “how did you make selections”. I mean, if doing your job well does not provide any consideration at all in RIF, what incentive is there to “compete to win”? Compete for who to win!? GM? I don’t think many people get out of bed every day with the goal making GM wealthier.
Companies aren't gonna tell you how they made their selections 'cause it opens them up to potential lawsuits. It's the same reason they don't tell job candidates why they weren't selected.
It sucks but it's the way things go.
I asked the VP who laid me off this exact question. He refused to answer me and asked the HR rep to jump in. The HR person tried to gaslight me and say it was “an emotional time” for me. They both refused to answer how the selection process worked.
Friendships
At Mdt- it’s all based on who is the vp’s friend and who is not