Is it true that if you're laid off you can never work at HPE again?
What's the business/legal point of this policy. If you quit you can come back, but if the market tanks and they have to let you go because of lack of business, you can't come back?
It really makes no sense to me.
I have two questions. I was laid off in June 2020 at the height of Covid. I joined Hp in 2015 and The company split — and I stayed at Hpe. 1) I saw an HPE job that is interesting…. *would I make it past initial application screening (it asks whether you were a previous employee and for your employee #) — given my WFR specified that I cannot return? 2) Does this no-return policy of HPE carry over to HP - where I was an employee prior to the split and in the early 2000?
"I've been hearing rumors that some WFR'ed people were getting hired back."
I was laid off a couple years ago and had a manager that wanted me immediately for a similar master level position. This was during the "Preferential Hiring Period". It had to go to the head of HR and took about 5 weeks, didn't seem very "Preferential". I think I was one of the very few. Then laid off again recently, I've moved on. Tired of HPE.
I've been hearing rumors that some WFR'ed people were getting hired back. Like many who were laid off in that huge wave 2 years ago we were given a choice to work for a contractor. Would be cheaper to hire back those contracted employees?
It's in the severance agreement, and because you get a pay out when you are laid off. It only applies to the most recent layoffs. (Last five years I think
I was laid off and several years later they asked me to come back...but thousands less than when I left :-(
But what about to a company they are about to buy, like Nimble Storage? Are you banned there too?
@voc, your comment about 401k vesting is not totally accurate. Yes, you are always vested 100% in your own contributions but you have ZERO vesting in the company match until you have been with HPE for 3 years, it is not prorated. Think of all the people that have been WFRd with less than 3 years time in and that is a huge sum of money saved by HPE to move onto their balance sheet by using that no rehire policy.
They routinely recruit redundant staff as Contractvworkers after 12 months in the UK.
Why?
It's unavoidable. They centralised in two relatively remote areas and are now suffering competition from Accenture, Siemens and other bodies. Finding decent people ismsomhard they've actually called peopel up and asked if they want to return.
I know of at least 3 that paid off their mortgages with their payoff, had a good break and who now command a handsome day rate to do pretty much what they used to do?
It would be funny if it were not so pathetic.
I've been wfr'd twice in the last three years. I went back the first time because it was easy, I had a manager who wanted me badly and was willing to put the work in to get me rehired. It still took most of the 60 day period. The "Preferential Hiring Period" .... what a load. It had to go up to the head of HR to get approved. It's only old guys who are likely to come back and that's what they don't want, plain and simple. How can you tell if senior HPE management is lying ....... etc etc.
“If you are that scared of change and that incapable of finding employment elsewhere, you probably deserved to be laid off.”
Some of us are stuck (for family reasons, for spouse’s job reasons) in areas where there are no other jobs available in our specialty… We COULD move and find a new job, but are stuck. So brain-dead policies by brain-dead companies like HPE ARE a source of injustice. Injustice is costly, in many kinds of terms… Economic, personal, quality of life, etc. Less taxes collected, too! The latter, some would argue, is a GOOD thing! More taxes for government, they say, is like another bottle of whiskey for an alcoholic!
For any really, really fired-up idealists out there who think that The Donald Trump can fix it all for us, here is where you can apply to work for The Donald: https://apply.ptt.gov/
HPE doesn't provide pensions anymore, so why would HPE care about that topic when making a hiring decision? Whether your pension is 100% vested or not from previous employment is of no concern to HPE.
You are completely vested in your 401K 100% when employed, so what relevance is that to being rehired or not after being laid off?
The cost savings on a laid off employee are not relevant either. The severance packages are pennies to HPE. If they hired you back, it will be at a lot less. If you want take a 35% pay cut and start over on benefits at a dead-end job and company, I'm sure HPE would be open to it.
The bigger question is why anyone would get laid off and get out and still go back? If you are that scared of change and that incapable of finding employment elsewhere, you probably deserved to be laid off.
Also has to do with federal laws regarding vesting in retirement accounts such as a 401k. If you are rehired within 5 years, your previous time worked counts toward vesting and time accrued. These laws were designed to protect seasonal jobs such as construction workers that get laid off every winter so they don't lose all their seniority and start over each time, or other jobs where furloughs are common. If you are eligible for rehire, HPE needs to "hold" those amounts they would be obligated to give you for that 5 year period while there is still a possibility of rehire. If you are not eligible for rehire, all those potential 401k/pension amounts go back into HPEs bank accounts immediately when you leave. They are always working an angle!
Simple classical economics says that as you limit your supply, the price will go up. HPE artificially "walls itself off from" the supply of laid-off labor? They will have to pay more, to attract labor! From a more-limited labor pool, that is... Also because they are killing any remaining reputation that they might have left, for being employee-friendly. So no, this makes no economic sense...
Until you consider H-1B, and THEN it makes sense! You are not ALLOWED to compete with H-1B types, even if you were willing to take less pay than they take! Meg wants more H-1Bs, because H-1Bs can't quit and go to work for a better employer, instead. They are the "indentured servants" (semi-salves) of today.
Oh... and first post is correct that there can now be exceptions approved at L1 level for rehire. This was the change in severance wording that resulted from a lawsuit. They had to get rid of "never" and tome it down to "exceptions are possible".
Management Theory is this: if you were paid a severance to leave then bringing you back is a lost cost advantage / reduction. Crappy but true.
That's the announced policy... But I know of two individuals who are back, full time regular, after being laid off. Depends on how desperate they get... They do allow exceptions, that is.
"They don't want to waste the money that they invested in your layoff" is a paraphrase of "why", according to them. They don't want to "invest" in giving you your go-away money once, and then end up doing it again. Yet an easier "fix" to this "problem" is much easier... If you are back time #2, just under-pay your pay rate for a few months or quarters, till you are back up to fair-and-square (paid back, paid off in full for previous go-away money), and then jack your pay rate back to normal for your job. Am I a finance genius, or what?!!?
My personal opinion here is that the REAL reason why they do this is, so that they "can't find anyone anywhere" to do the job, so they just MUST hire more H-1B immigrant workers! To save more money for Meg, of course...
Yes, it's stupid... Perhaps also evil! For one thing, it encourages the laid-off, to sue... Why NOT sue, if there is nothing to lose?