Thread regarding AT&T layoffs

T has a lot of reasons we don't know about that drive layoffs. They are changing the business, outsourcing IT as usual, eliminating and acquiring other businesses. They also are seeking to invest money in new technology. No one knows until after it happens. You're the tail of the snake being whipped back and forth at whim. And it's no fun. Just say'n...

Stop talking about collaboration zones (they are "engagement zones" now, by the way). It has nothing to do with anything. Was used as an excuse to get rid of some people, and that's all. And was hardly representative of all people laid off (those "not" in a collaboration zone). Sure, many were in that category, but many were not. Plenty of people of a certain age and tenure (think: "ALMOST" at that MR of 75) that were sitting in or near CZ, and collaborating their backsides off were also canned. Some of you must not be active on LinkedIn, because after 3/29, it was truly eye- opening to keep seeing all of these good AT&T folks caught in the surplus. 95% of which fit a similar age and years of service profile.

If the AM thought so highly of this person why did they get the low ratings? Sounds like the AM is pushing bs to cover their behind. Now there might be someone up the line who forced the initial ratings to be changed but that would be highly unusual.

I’ve seen new college grads in non cz locations announcing they started employment here on LinkedIn. Yet everyone else in the non cz s that are older are getting cut due to location. Explain this to me , leadership.

With 30+ years of service and a resume filled with many achievements, and with 10X the amount of work of his coworkers, he had to retire. He received the lowest appraisal and bonus ratings because he took on projects that the newbies could not handle and had so many obstacles and delays. So, on a team conference call, the AM said, “We can’t let you go. We don’t have anyone on our team who has the experience to handle these projects.”

This is what at&t is coming to people!

1-rzv, OP here.

What you say might be true, but in this case, all but one of the employees were already located in CZs. Now, the new hire positions for their replacements are posted for Dallas. However, one of the surplused was already in Dallas, and the others were given no opportunity to move there.

I just checked Indeed and the jobs are still there.

It's been my belief since the layoffs began that the company is targeting those who are grandfathered into the pension plan. The whole " Collaboration Zone " b---s--- is merely the smokescreen they're using to do so because the EEOC would crucify them otherwise.

Since it's very illegal to selectively remove folks based on age, they simply do so using the made up metric of where you work. Some of the younger workforce will get caught up in it for sure, but the company considers them collateral damage as the vast majority are the older crowd.

Seriously, does the approach the company is using to determine who leaves or stays make ANY sense to you ? ( Show of hands ) Completely disregarding how much benefit an employee brings to the company, how much work they get done, how much expertise and / or wisdom they have ?

What successful company in history has EVER randomly slashed and burned their workforce like this using only a metric of where you report to work ? ( Where, btw, is dictated by the company itself. It's not like we get to pick our reporting location. )

Or, do you think there might be more to it than what AT&T is letting on ?

It's only a theory, but AT&T has to keep quite a bit of money tied up into the pension plan by law. As they cull more and more people who are eligible for it, the amount of funding it requires starts to trend downwards. Once the last of their employees who are grandfathered into the plan is let go, they don't have to fund it at all.

Every single person I personally know who has been let go thus far were all pension plan participants. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Several of the people who were let go barely had the dust settle from their position before the company hired CONTRACTORS to pick the work up where they left off. ( First hand knowledge of this because I now get to work with contractors. )

Personally, I hope the EEOC starts an investigation and absolutely destroys the leadership that came up with this plan.

It's about the only way we'll end up with a company worth saving :|

( I should have wrote this on my eNPR )

I believe every word of the OP because I have seen this happen first hand.

T has the government in their pocket so they can get away with anything.

welcome to fascism.

Talking about funny things i have three stories, I was part of the 3/29 lay-off / 1- I applied for my exact position in 7 or 8 different places and was told I was not a match for something I did for years. 2- I interviewed for another position and did not get the job (20 openings) what’s weird is after interviews done and positions filled and unposted there was no new names under that mgr in web——ne, 3rd and best my last yearly pay increase was higher than the one who stayed lol.

Sooooo NOT surprised!

FYI- All titles listed under AVP. So suspect The Company Gods direct the AVP’s how many Employees they need to downsize by. The AVP’s Tell the Directors how many they need to reduce by. The Director’s review their years build and instructs their Area Managers how many people they need to downsize. Some groups (work titles)are not considered where others are chosen due to not being vital to the current build. The list is a composite of all work titles under the AVP, who was eligible and who was chose and what work title they held.

Why is it a secret what the titles are?

"Phony claim to stir you people up? Not much corroborating evidence to the original post."

Well that's pretty much the entire site. As in literally every single post. That's why it's anonymous social media and not a court room.

That said, other than a number of pretty specific outlandish claims that pop up occasionally, I see no reason to doubt this post or any number of "I was laid off after X years" posts. I mean, we read those all the time knowing that there won't be "corroborating evidence" to back them up.

For those of you expressing doubt, can you explain why?

Phony claim to stir you people up? Not much corroborating evidence to the original post.

That list is a sham, I have also seen them change titles up of employees just before a surplus in order to rig those numbers.

Proving age discrimination if someone is laid off through surplus IS difficult. No doubt.

But if the company turns around while they're still employed and hires the same number of people, for the same title, with the specification that they be hired from the college hire program? That sounds like a whole different animal.

For those of you expressing doubt, can you explain why? If there company hires for the exact same title, all of a sudden the "surplus" designation loses its meaning. There was no surplus if they didn't intend to go down a net number of employees. Who's missing what here?

The Company provides a Report that shows job title, age of each prospective candidate and columns of not chosen and selected under AVP of affected work groups. It’s a very detailed list specific intent to prove selections were not based on age alone. The Company does enough to show non bias but there is enough selections of the older established employees to know the true intent.

Discrimination is very hard to prove, would also take years. deck is stacked against the employee.

They’re really needs to be an investigation by the eeoc here at least

Cool story bro.

Meh, just gets settled and they’ll keep doing it.