People be prepared. Before the end of January is out there will be more information sent out about systems rank and file employees reduction. I think it will be severe based on everything we have seen thus far and I don't think analyst will stand a chance.
Posted by @Qu0mmH5-fkdc, anybody know more about the mentioned reductions?
I’m from a media outlet based in Bloomington-Normal. We’re working on a story about what’s really going on with these buyouts/layoffs at SF. Need your help. Send me a text at 779.903.3590 or on the Signal app (BNreports/779.903.3590). You can stay anonymous.
To the person who disagreed with my earlier post about remote workers not being extended offers, let me clarify: Yes, it is possible for an area to open a JOP for an otherwise existing need and IF the executives approve the JOP, it is possible for a remote worker to apply for, and obtain, an offer to relocate (minus the relo benefits, in many cases).
That is not what I was talking about.
In fact, my area jumped through a bunch of hoops to get a new opening created for a job category that might in fact be going away, and they crafted the JOP specifically FOR ME, and yes, I could have applied and gotten it. I was pretty much a shoe in, as the JOP was written for me.
I turned it down. I'm not moving. But that's neither here nor there.
What I am saying is that if you were a remote worker, your business area did not have carte blanche to merely say, "Hey, if you wanna relocate, your job is still yours."
A JOP had to be opened. It had to be approved. You had to interview. You had to be chosen.
This is the second time I've been laid off by State Farm so I know the ritual well. Last time, we were told we could keep our jobs -- all we had to do was move. The offer was AUTOMATIC. I turned the offer down then too. But again, that's an aside.
My point is that the company's EXPLANATION for why they got rid of remote workers does not match it's actual behavior. We were told our jobs were being eliminated because teams needed to be co-located. If that was the only reason, there could easily have been a policy to automatically extend job opportunities to remote workers willing to relocate, as that ELIMINATES the problem they claimed to be solving.
They chopped remotes because it was an easy way to reduce head count.
Except this time (unlike the last time I went through this), they're not stopping at remotes.
Interesting point about managers selecting their teams after they get selected by directors. So what if your manager is not selected?
One of the things I've said from the beginning is that if 25% of first line managers are eliminated then that means 25% of analyst/developer level workers will be in a hard spot as they won't have any manager there to back them and why they should be kept.
Top performers are probably well known amongst all the managers and they'll be selected first. (lottery picks if you will). All the average folks (majority of people) that are looking for a remaining spot will be in a much better position if their existing manager is making selections.
Disagree regarding the posts about not offering jobs to remotes. In my unit two job postings were made for positions where we were losing remote workers. Relocation benefits did not apply, but the remotes were not blocked from applying for their own positions and were encouraged to apply. I'm sure business cases could not be made for all the positions held by remotes, but its untrue to say no opportunities have been offered.
I totally agree with this point from the last post: "The goal is to reduce jobs not shift them."
Case in point: business areas were not allowed to extend relocation offers (with or without relo benefits) to their remote workers, no matter how much they valued their remote workers or how expensive it would be to replace them. This proves the goal was NOT increasing efficiency. It was eliminating jobs.
People working outside of BLM have traditionally been fodder for the occasional corporate appetite to reduce headcount, but now it has spilled over into Bloomington.
The goal is to have as few employees as possible. One look at the JOPs tells us that this will require nearly everyone to have some type of technical background and to use technical tools to establish their worth.
Ad services for a fact will be going through some type of restructuring. Automation is happening within Underwriting, current pilot in biz lines now as ILliis the pilot. Systems is going to have far less people over time. Just don't know what that means far less? Here's the thing if you can't tell that SF is trying to dramatically streamline their overall operations from systems on down to claims I don't know what to tell you. This is not the old state Farm. This State Farm is trying to radically shift from a legacy antiquated company to a more swift agile on like our competitors. Look at how much our competitors are gaining biz compared to our losses. People look out for yourselves. And try very hard not to think there will be Something out there. That's not the goal. The goal is to reduce jobs not shift them.
My director did say that relocation benefits will be offered to individuals when they announced our move. This doesn't mean that everyone who's work moved will be offered a position in the new location and I expect that many are not willing to move. This will be the most interesting part of the reorg; how to handle the shuffle without causing disruption, and there is no credible information on how they are going to do it yet
The only thing we can do is wait and see what happens.
New managers selected for new teams at other hubs and they are/will be selecting their teams.
I'm not the one who made the comment about "stirring the pot," but I wouldn't expect any suspected pot-stirrers to be State Farm employees. In an earlier thread, we had some malcontents who clearly didn't work for State Farm arguing about how everyone in State Farm Systems (even Java developers) were grossly overpaid. That sounds like someone who doesn't like State Farm people, trying to freak them out -- especially since their claim isn't true.
So yeah, there are people on here trying to stir the pot.
I try to evaluate the claims based on what I know of SF... More specific claims are more believable than broad ones. So, for example, the claim that Ad Services is going to start going through a restructuring similar to Systems in January is a more believable claim than, "Watch out Systems! More announcements coming!"
Here's how I look at it. If leadership knew for sure there would be no more cuts in Systems, they would say so to quiet everyone's fears and keep their best resources from bailing. Their silence on the topic speaks volumes.
There is work shifting between hubs for different systems departments. In some cases the people can’t follow the work so they are being asked to find other jobs in their hub. That may be a way for people to leave if they don’t have work worthy of switching to. I am not sure if relocation is being offered to transfer between hubs...I’ll have to find out about that.
And I don’t think anyone is trying to stir the pot....that sounds like a management response to posts in this site. This is a pretty serious subject.
The previous poster is correct: it could be someone trying to stir the pot.
Although, in previous threads, there were two rumors I lend credence to:
1) Ad Services (not Systems, but seems a likely target)
2) ISD
Haven't heard of any evidence to back this up. Seems like someone trying to stir the pot