Just wondering, taking care of your friends, favorites, kiss asses is one ting, but thinning the worker headcount by letting the good performers go and keeping the under performers is double damage and a good recipe for disaster. Don’t they realize that the under performers, as unfair as that is, could only survive because the good workers pulled extra load. Is there a point at which the poor performers will need to be cut, or are they just stubbornly keeping them until the company is run to the ground?
10 replies (most recent on top)
Please remind the thousands of techs that have been surplussed over the last 5 years how great the CWA Union is. Mgrs know going in they could be gone at any time, craft folks expect support and action from our Uinion, we get nothing but empty promises and excuses.
It is because of the Union seniority rules that old guys with over 30 years sit around and do nothing and can never be surplussed. The young techs with families and 10-15 years with the company are the ones that get the ax.
Thats why we pay union dues. Managers are fired all the time because of no union.
Good question. There’s seems to be something smelly but interesting to investigate in every BU and most groups. There’s always this guy (usually the most senior in age and tenure) that also happens to be the worst performer. Sunken metrics, absent 1-2 days of every working week (without warning), everybody have to help him complete his jobs (or do it all), always have a problem and don’t know much about the technologies he’s supposed to be working with, none of his peers want to deal with him, everybody in the market knows everything about, endless sick days and vacations, never in trouble with the manager.... This guy have to know a very good secret from somebody in management. 🤔😉
Time to launch a investigation.
In many business units, this premise isn't true, and the reason is metrics. When there is bean counting, a manager is responsible for the numbers generated by his direct reports, and that can cascade down the chain of command.
Who wants a lousy subordinate that constantly needs their hand held, that delivers lousy numbers? No one wants a headache. Now if there is no bean counting, no metrics, then maybe someone can get away with this.
Why does AT&T require high-performers? A telecommunications company without any real competitors requires solid government relationships and cheap bureaucratic labor. It's not like AT&T is an innovative company trying to change the world...
AT&T was architected to attract & retain bureaucratic poor performers .
Back in the day, poor performers could be put on PIPs, and have they didn't improve, they got let go. Common sense, right? That no longer happens today, and dead weight is allowed to survive/thrive. HR is too worried about lawsuits to allow any type of common sense employee management.
Well said, this approach worked well, until it got old.
Unfortunately performance doesn’t matter on the craft side either. Lots of dead weight in the NRC and CO positions.
Performance doesn't matter. It's a-- kissing that will continue your employment and performance rating. This the way it was , is and will be. There is no other way. That's the long and short of it.