PepsiCo needs to understand that while there may be no easy way to do this, there are options that they should seriously consider. Other large companies ask for volunteers. We were told last year that “we don’t do this”. My question is why not?
While the immediate monetary impact may be a little larger there are defined benefits. It seems logical to me that the reduction of head count of long term employees who are ready and willing to leave would have a long term net-net impact of zero. Take for example a 20 year employee who is ready to retire but is not on “the list”. They may wait another calendar year to see if they are on the list next February. They are then drawing 52 weeks of salary and benefits rather than 40. It’s not rocket science.
Additionally the amount of stress the current approach has on all employees needs to be considered. Stress will kill people and unfortunately this seems to have held true this year. There has to be a large population of employers with chronic diseases (mirroring the percentage of the US population) where stress is a major contributing factor of flair ups, think RA, MS, Crohns, IBS, Lupus etc. Flares result in lost productivity.
Lastly, sleep is in short supply during this seemingly annual event which also
impacts productivity. That coupled with the intense desire to find out what is going on and who is impacted means that the amount of true work that happens in the designated week before and during this time frame is less for a lot of people.
Wake up PepsiCo, there is a better way to handle it!
This couldn’t be any truer. Felt this post from @XJ5QF2L-1kij needed its own thread.