From what i see on this board these layoffs affected multiple locations and multiple segments of the company but as far as I can tell from people’s post there wasn't a big number of targeted people at each location. Is this true, or is something wrong with my perception?
9 replies (most recent on top)
Regarding the post about the WARN Report "I don’t know all the rules, I would be open to hear from more knowledgeable people. But I have never seen T as part of any WARN Act posting, in any state, or at any time. It’s my belief they keep the numbers below that 100 Surplus count, in each state, so they fly under the radar, avoid the mandatory postings and keep things as quiet as possible."
This report was up to March 10, 2019 for California.
https://www.edd.ca.gov/Jobs_and_Training/warn/WARN_Report_for_7-1-2018_to%20_03-10-2019.pdf
https://imgflip.com/i/2w65q4
https://imgflip.com/i/2w65us
When AT&T (SBC) gives notification of an intended plant closing, or mass lay-off, (that affects more than 100 employees) they fulfill their obligation under the WARN Act by giving 60 days notice. They notify the employee at the same time as state and local representatives. This happens in each, and every state, that this applies too.
Each state posts their own individual WARN Act, if those numbers are met, or exceeded by the company, mandatory postings are made in the following month(s) that apply....Sears appeared in many states WARN Act publications while going through bankruptcy, and some individual stores did have under 100 employees before closing entire stores and those numbers were posted.
I don’t know all the rules, I would be open to hear from more knowledgeable people. But I have never seen T as part of any WARN Act posting, in any state, or at any time. It’s my belief they keep the numbers below that 100 Surplus count, in each state, so they fly under the radar, avoid the mandatory postings and keep things as quiet as possible.
I may came across as talking from fact....I don’t claim it to be entirely that, but I believe it is plausible!
Any thoughts?
65 were laid off in Raleigh nc alone 75 in Florida, 8 in Columbia sc, the ones in Columbia were fired based off their metrics and attendance
No one seems to know how the surplused employees were selected .... apparently senority was not a factor.
11 out of 25 techs I would consider a huge loss. All Premise Techs. What's your deal man!?!?
Not sure if you're used to offices with hundreds of people. Uverse garages usually only house 15-25 techs per location. From what I've seen its been 20-40% surplus rate at each location which is an huge number.
OP here. @Y55PBgu-bpq of course I’m not saying it’s not a big deal. God no! I’m just trying to figure out if this was indeed the method in which they were performing layoffs today. If this is true, then the purpose was not to start panic at a specific location and in that way lay off more people under the radar. What’s wrong with trying to determine is that the case.
?? when you do 3 or 4 at 500 locations, it adds up. wtf are you saying, that 3 or 4 "here and there" is no big deal??