Thread regarding AT&T layoffs

"Another way to look at.. they save laying off people with fewer years of service. Less severance."

Compare that to someone getting a pension and a new hire not getting pension that theory doesn't hold water. Tons of money in pensions that they need to cap.

the cz concept seems counterintuitive for a corp that pushes mobility, anywhere/everywhere technology. surprised no one has argued that the whole we won't pay you unless u sign this is duress.

It's more than just a smokescreen. There is obviously some logic to it whether you agree of disagree. I'm sure they'd like to target more expensive employees, but it's not as simple as age + service. A lot of employees don't get retirement benefits at any age + service, so it's on a case by case basis.

I agree. This concept of Collaborative Zones is the biggest bunch of horse-$hit I've ever heard. During a time of global wireless connectivity and they now want to get rid of people who are not sitting in the right place? Come on! That notion is pretty lame, don't you think? VO (Virtual Office) is now a bad thing at least until it is not......which will be coming (back) I'm sure at the proper time and place in the future. Matter of fact, in the future there will probably be more people WFH than in an office in order to sell off all of their prize real estate.

They want to corral everyone into focal areas for close inspection and continue to shrink/eliminate large swaths of people within the legacy businesses.

It's........well, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, OK? And we're all the fish. Good Luck!

There are layoffs at every level and every age. I have seen many young ones also let go and at&t is trying to save money where ever they can.

Just because a person signed away their rights to sue, doesn't mean they can't sue. Signed contracts aren't always legally binding. It depends on many things... interpretations by the judges involved for instance

AT&T has many older employees. So I'm not sure they are necessarily targeting a certain age and years of service. I think it just happens that so many employees meet that criteria. I think they are just looking for people to lay off and don't care.

Another way to look at.. they save laying off people with fewer years of service. Less severance.

The ‘members of the collateral damage’ group are better positioned to secure one of the few available open jobs with the company.

your premis about laying off in the non cz locations to target older people, while accepting some collateral damage is spot on