Now for the question they don't want us to ask.
How many of those laid off off were 40 or older?
Another protected class?
Minority?
Disabled?
Remote?
Male vs female?
Had you taken any FMLA or other personal time for personal or family issues?
On our small team of about 20 there are approx 5 on some kind of leave. Only 1 is older (60S) & the rest in their 30s. FWIW.
Our Medicare teams have been pushed out through early retirement, RIF, terminated for unrealistic targets or made to reapply for current positions only to be replaced by younger, friends with zero experience in the Medicare industry. Not the recipe for success but to clearly send a message that open and honest communication with leadership is only a bullet point and not actual culture of making things better for both customers and employees. If you did not fall into line as a “YES” employee… you were targeted. New leadership with phone experience now running sales.
No resentment just making a point. Know multiple women that start at humana, get pregnant right away, take 12 weeks off, then another four throughout the year, while our senior citizens are working away and told they can’t take time off because their coworkers are out. Yet when older workers get sick, and have to take time off, they’re looked down upon for using their benefits. No difference here except the older ones usually don’t last long after they start using their benefits while some of the younger ones have multiple kids during their tenure. I’m glad H has a great parental leave benefit, but not at the expense of other benefits that everyone uses.
Cost company all that parental leave? Do I sense some resentment there? What is wrong with company giving parental leave to mom and dad after their new born? If you have children but did not have this benefit back then, wouldn’t you wish you could have had it so to spend more time with them? Or at least hoping the place your adult children is working at offering this, so they can spend some more time with their children( your grandchildren)?
Laid off scrum masters, backfilling with cheap offshore labor.
If Humana wanted to keep their tenured, most knowledgeable associates, who just so happen to be say 55-70, they NEVER would have offered early retirement. So indirectly, they have targeted older associates. Older associates do have more health problems, take more FMLA, and bereavement but at least don’t cost the company all that parental leave!!
I do believe the older associates are 'targeted' for layoffs. It's about the bottom line, reducing administrative costs. Older associates have more health issues with more chronic conditions, higher usage (claims cost) and based on tenur, hight salaries.
The 2022 Humana report showed a decline in female leadership, particularly with Hispanic females. Not specific to RIFs, but Humana does a poor job of diversifying there work force.
Well they were looking to cut costs. Higher salary usually means more experience which are held by older associates.
I have not seen a indications of leaders leaning towards a focus on any of these demographics when choosing who was selected for RIF. Who are the "they" in your comment? The board? Could some leaders have a bias towards certain demographics? Absolutely possible. But stating Humana as a single entity is making targeted reduction decision based on demographics is a big accusation. You know as well as I that Humana leaders can not coordinate a uniform decision as a whole well. Just can not see this as being a coordinated plan or intention. Agree with the previous commenter, this feels like a huge reach here and hunt for a conspiracy.
Four letters-EEOC. If you have evidence, they will investigate.
This thread feels very "conspiracy theory". I do not believe there was an intent by leadership to target any specific demographic.
I am 55, a white female. After 12 years of being remote, the entire directorate was laid off from the highest to the lowest position.
It's easy to see where you are going with this question but at this time it's irrelevant. The cuts are obviously based on the end of some processes or being replaced by AI or off shoring.
It may be relevant to ask the demographics of those who were able to get other roles within the company. That might tell a story.
By the way 62 Remote
Whites over 55 that didn’t take ERP and rest impacted were black and Hispanic. New leader hand picked mainly all white male team under 55 to move forward. HR protects upper leadership not the employees. They use point in time assessments to protect themselves or at least use as their excuse on who stays and who goes. Very subjective, they even question the assessments to ensure that the ratings are high on those they like and want to keep. Diversity and Inclusion? Unfortunately not the same company.
30 remote no issues
40+, Remote