Do we know who makes the decision on who gets laid off?
Do managers submit names of lower performers or is it strictly based on how high somebody's pay is?
I think that the second system is extremely stupid and shortsighted, but from what I've been reading so far, that seems to be the way it is done.
And if that's the truth, how screwed up is it that experience, knowledge, and years with the company have become a liability?
For Tacoma it was basically a shift bid. Managers who had less than 8 years of experience did not get selected which is a questionable business move. Basically they went by ratings first and because everyone is a 2-2 it barely made a difference. So managers with 20 years of experience got a job while people who had six years in the company didn’t.
Be careful what you ask for... there are some clown managers whose ratings of direct reports aren't accurate... so it would be a shame for someone who got a bad rating one time after a career of good ratings to be cut...
Careful..the same managers that some of you are complaining about are the ones that rate performance of their direct reports.. what makes you sure those performance ratings are accurate... there's a few clowns in first line management...
Yes they are going after high salaries which in turn is the older employees.
I guarantee you that person at corporate that makes the decisions is looking at salaries- or is that the same as age???
"...meaning the company does not care about job performance."
Nailed it.
As an "affected" 50 something year old Proximity employee with nearly 25 years, this is the part that stings the worst. Performance didn't mean crap when they preselected the 2 in my area based on their zip code being 1/2 mile closer to the projected territory.
It really depends on what area you work in. Fire Proximity staffing decisions were determined by someone at Corporate creating projected territories. They then looked at where people lived relative to the territories and made one of the following decisions: 1. If only one person lived within that territory, they were determined to be not-impacted and kept their job. 2. If there were people that were in an area that they felt did not need a proximity presence they were impacted and lost their jobs. 3. If multiple people lived in a territory that required a Proximity presence, those people are impacted and are competing for their positions. They got to choose to opt-in and compete, or opt-out and take an involuntary severance and be done 7/31. The opt in process involved a drop down screen and there is no input from local management.
TL/DR: Proximity Fire decisions based not on job performance but where you lived, meaning the company does not care about job performance.