Thread regarding Follett layoffs

FYI

Because layoffs can open the door to a multitude of lawsuit Follett and most large companies follow strict guidelines when making selections for layoffs. This process eliminates any perception of illegal elimination of employees.

Yes we are allowed to fired anyone “at will” we are not allowed to discriminate which is why the only thing that determined which employees were laid off was the documented criteria. Consistency across the board is mandatory. It was clearly stated that the employees selected for the November layoff would be, full-time, salaried or hourly and they were the last hired employees that met this criteria. Seniority is a very common selection method. When reducing a labor force it is very important to retain your most experienced employees. These guidelines were followed for every employee laid off. After the list of employees was compiled it was checked and double checked to make sure each and every employee met the criteria. Although some may think this is not a fair way to make the selection it is the only way to avoid any lawsuits of age, race, sex or any other type of discrimination. Any variation from documented criteria would be detrimental to any company forced to layoff a large number of employees. I hope this information helps anyone who thinks they may have been set up by their manager or co-workers.

by
| 621 views | | 12 replies (last March 5, 2014) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+utmGhzZ

12 replies (most recent on top)

5917 - I don't know you, so I am going to assume that you sincerely believe this is true. The problem is that many of us have personally observed blatant verifiable lies coming from upper management. Makes it hard to believe anything you say.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1bz+utmGhzZ

The are/were targeting people who have been with the company and are 40 years old and older and have/had seniority due to their compensations.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @mBv+utmGhzZ

Well its obvious in the home office if your older they are documenting all they can that you do your job wrong. This is where the set ups are happening. It's a bullshit game.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @5nR+utmGhzZ

Anyone laid off who is over 40 years old and has seniority needs to bring the paperwork they received to a lawyer. If reverse seniority is being used to lay people off that is age discrimination. If you are over 40 you are a "protected class" and most people who have 15, 20, 30 years of seniority are over 40. You are protected by the law! Read all the paperwork you were given and see a lawyer before you sign anything. Good Luck

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @CxP+utmGhzZ

That's not the same as saying others weren't targeted outside November's layoff. It is clear that some have been picked off because of their tenure and how expensive they are. Let's not forget the company paid a consultant to say senior employees were over paid.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @pXj+utmGhzZ

To 5922 - Great idea just ask people if they want to get laid off. you would no problem getting enough people, trust me on this on.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @8KG+utmGhzZ

Why does this leadership keep lying? We see it right in front of our faces. We have dealt with it and still do, we know what's going on. And we also know you gave the managers a heads up long before it happen so they started writing people up on the employees they wanted least for everything and anything so HR would have the paperwork it wanted. So not only did people work on enormous stress with less people they were given even more stress so HR could get a couple more sheets of paper. That's real nice of you.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @mcv+utmGhzZ

laid off today, store level. does the severance doc mean I can't get unemployment? oh yeah. 35yrs.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @Nz1+utmGhzZ

That is what we were told in November. I don't believe that's the way it actually went down in all stores that had layoffs. Most maybe but definitely not all. I don't know why they don't ask if anyone wants to be laid off. is that illegal to do? lol. I guess this is a stupid question.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @mHL+utmGhzZ

I can name people that were laid off that were NOT 'last in, first out'. I can assure you this. One employee was over 30 years and another 20+ years.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @6m7+utmGhzZ

Well guess what that may be what you think it is not what occurred across the board. It may have been for one selection of the people let go but it did not include everyone let go and I think you know that. We are not buying into more lies. And besides when this was questioned before THAT WAS NEVER stated just "at will" and at Follett's discretion. So pardon if I think someone may have just came up with this to try and make it more palatable, or maybe there are concerns about lawsuits now?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @Dup+utmGhzZ

This is comical. They are using no such criteria. We can all list a handful of high performing people who don't fit the criteria above. Last in -first out. Seriously?! Retain most experienced?! Excuse me while I collect myself....

bullsh!t!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @mUS+utmGhzZ

Post a reply

: