Thread regarding State Farm Insurance layoffs

The age discrimination is real

The age discrimination is real. Whether State Farm has managed to skirt the law successfully is a matter for the courts to decide, and I suggest those impacted take it there.

I know several younger people who took voluntary severance. In every case, they were told some variation of, "No, don't take this severance. This isn't intended for you."

So you have to ask yourself, why would the company OFFER severance to people that it DID NOT WANT to take it? The only logical reason is if NOT doing so would create a legal issue for them, and the only way that makes sense is if the people they REALLY wanted to take the severance were members of a protected class.

I'm certainly no expert on whether one can came age discrimination while simultaneously opting out of the company in exchange for a larger payday. But what I am certain of is that the people SF wanted to leave were identified in large part by their age. Combined with all the stories on this site from people who felt pushed out by targeted management practices (particularly in claims), I am left with the impression that there may in fact be a lawsuit here for those with the patience for it.

by
| 5411 views | | 12 replies (last August 22, 2019) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+SPBdOMq

12 replies (most recent on top)

State Farm is an Agesism company. I have taken their tests several times, passing it when I was younger, but today, I have failed 3 times. But, the strange this is, I have taken similar tests from other companies in the insurance business and have passed. Yes, they are ageism. Sad...

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @7Quxi+SPBdOMq

“You don’t know sh--” needs to check their attitude. They are and have been targeting over 40 for some time now. It is a fact and they will eventually get hit with legal action. Just too many similar stories and it is getting ridiculous as to the lengths they will go to get people to quit or claim they are not meeting new (often) expectations. I shudder to think of all the knowledge base they are releasing at the Bank (and bank already struggled). I can only assume it is the same in Insurance.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @9svx+SPBdOMq

They find a way out of every legal issue however, I do remember they were sued for not paying people the over time pay They were supposed to be paying them. I opted out and damned glad I did

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1nma+SPBdOMq

The bank said some roles were safe I.e. unimpacted but they had to go to title. I’m guessing future state we see more diverse titles instead of 500 bank business analysts. Should make cherry picking easier, or picking the toppings you don’t want off a pizza if you’re looking for a more negative visual.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1kql+SPBdOMq

Per last post, the OP makes good point. Why offer severance to people you wish would not take it?

The reason is either legal or they simply have no way to pick the ones they want because they have no preference... which is unlikely IMO. It's not from sense of fair play, for sure.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1lps+SPBdOMq

I think the bank is going to end up having to post for a lot of Mg and RA jobs because people are opting out in roles they weren’t expecting. Well I hope they post and don’t backfill with unqualified people. That’s repeating the mistakes of the past and puts everyone back in jeopardy. IMO.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ngh+SPBdOMq

The people who took it and were told “this wasn’t intended for you”, were probably told that by their supervisor or manager who certainly has no idea the intent.

Except it was more than that. I don't know of any employees who heard directly from Tipsord, Fawad, Pettit, or another executive, but I do know that the results went all the way to the top and after conversations between directors and executives, those directors came back trying to talk people out of taking the severance.

However, the point you make is a fair assumption, and certainly better than the guy who unceremoniously declared, "you don't know sh--."

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1quz+SPBdOMq

The people who took it and were told “this wasn’t intended for you”, were probably told that by their supervisor or manager who certainly has no idea the intent. Smart people don’t make comments like that, because those comments can get you in trouble.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ugm+SPBdOMq

P.S.

Someone other than the OP copied this into a new thread. I know, since I'm the OP and I did not post this here.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @buy+SPBdOMq

You don't know sh--, you're just speculating and pretending some knowledge into something you don't know.

If you're going to challenge me for "not knowing sh--," you might want to bring some facts of your own to the table.

Everything that I know was identified as such in this post.

Everything that is speculation was also identified as such.

For example, I know that several younger people who took the voluntary severance packages were in fact told that this package was not intended for them and there were attempts to talk them out of it.

The rest of that is speculation, but you tell me genius, why would they offer severance to people who they didn't want to take it? Let's see your logical process in action.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @fug+SPBdOMq

STATE FARM HIRES THE BEST LAWYERS AND IT'S HARD TO DEFEAT THEM. WITHOUT A DOUBT, THEY GOT CREATIVE IN GETTING RID OF THEIR OLDEST/MOST EXPENSIVE EMPLOYEES.

NOW, I DO THINK THE BLOOD LETTING WE ARE NOW SEEING IS A RESULT OF LONG RANGE FORECASTS WHICH IS SHIFTING LIABILITY TO THE MANUFACTUROR WITH THE ADVENT OF DRIVERLESS AUTOS. THEY WON'T NEED PONY EXPRESS RIDERS ANYMORE.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @jag+SPBdOMq

You don't know sh--, you're just speculating and pretending some knowledge into something you don't know.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ocs+SPBdOMq

Post a reply

: