This seems to have been a way to get rid of the older folks. Am I wrong?
6 replies (most recent on top)
To me it seemed like they kept the people who had been there the longest
I was told by one boss at Nielsen since I was old I could not be considered high potential. My EEOC case was approved. I didn’t pursue it since it made more sense to just take the money.
Balancing headcount vs. target savings is indeed a complex task for managers. It's important to strike a balance between cost reduction and maintaining necessary skills and experience within the team. Opting for extremes, like targeting only high salaries or only low salaries, can lead to issues such as loss of expertise or insufficient workforce. Forced cuts at the top can result in overreliance on junior employees, which can impact performance and capabilities. A thoughtful approach that considers both cost and skill retention is crucial in these situations. All this to say Age should not the primary aspect.
They were so concerned about that accusation in January, that it was part of the Severance Agreement. It included a OWBPA clause - giving extra time to raise a case on that point. There were a lot of older workers (listed for your dept only by title/age) - dk if they crossed the line - I'm guessing they were right up on it. Older workers cost more.....
I do know some people over 50 that still have a job there. But, that did cross my mind.
I understand how you could feel that way, but I really don’t think the corporate heads would even remotely take that into consideration. In these situations it really does just come down to every employee being nothing more that a number on a spreadsheet and how many of those number need to be removed in order to bring costs down while still maintaining revenue. I seriously doubt anything was taken into consideration other than annual cost of employing said person and how much revenue their position generated. Can we still maintain that revenue without said cost of employing said person.