On a similar note, I don't understand why 3M isn't using voluntary early retirement incentives. I know this was discussed a month or two on this site, but it seems so bizarre that 3M wouldn't pursue this mechanism which would limit liability, negative perception, and not have as profound of effect on morale. I don't buy the argument at all that early retirement opens the company up for lawsuits - people would be choosing of their own free will.
I share the same opinion, @sjj+1mlLn5hM
I am unsure why 3M Company would not first seek volunteers for elimination.
If the company want to reconfigure from Current to new structure, why not first ask for volunteers. Second step is to make the moves to final configuration.
As an experienced 3Mer, I fail to understand why this two step process would not be worth the extra time to complete.
I asked this question more than a few times of my HR rep in 1 on 1 meetings to review my team's performance, when rumors were floating of another layoff (to meet the quarterly earnings commitments to Wall Street).
Every time I was told the same BS answer: "we don't want to lose our best employees to our competitors and even pay them to leave!"
What?!?! You mean you're worried our "best" might leave us and go work for the competition. How could that be if 3M was such a "great place to work" - you'd think would take less to stay at such a wonderful place.
As a mid 1980s hire and recent retiree, I can tell you HR was once full of good, well-meaning people who helped support people and their development. That all changed when the guy from GE came in and decided HR should be used to implement a despised and pernicious forced ranking system and then use it to "motivate" people to work harder and longer to be rated a 2 (below average) or 1 (unsatisfactory).
Such a frigging waste!
Oh because we can trust an earnings call lol
Start by reading the earnings call. Most of it makes sense if you decipher what they cutting.
What evidence do you have that they are focused on wasteful positions? I know of lots of outstanding contributors who were let go
It's just an extra bonus of cuts when it occurs. Why would they limit that? They're clearly focusing and targeting on wasteful positions.