> the severance and extended benefits are far more generous than any layoff I've been through here in the states
Interesting. Are big tech companies less generous than big engineering firms in other fields? When companies like BP, Boeing, etc. have had layoff rounds, 3 months is just about the minimum package for an involuntary termination, and it's common to first offer much higher voluntary packages to reduce headcount without having to actually fire (sorry, "terminate") people, especially longtime employees. My dad accepted a voluntary severance package equal to 18 months' salary some years ago (something like "1 month per year of service up to a cap" is a common formula for voluntary offers).
I think this is in part due to what you mention: the morale of the existing employees can be significantly impacted by how their former colleagues were treated. Many people know each other out of work, so escorting the employees out of the building by security with no warning is not going to successfully keep them from talking, and if anything will probably just make them more resentful when they meet up for a beer after work to discuss how the layoff was handled. The former employees may also turn up in other situations (college recruiting, industry organizations, consulting/sales, etc.) where it's not to your company's advantage for there to be a lot of people floating around who hold a grudge about the manner in which they were abruptly laid off.
When IBM did their layoff action in 2013, people in Australia received 2 weeks pay for every year they had worked at IBM. I was there, saw those people leave, saw what they got offered. Was really sad about it because one guy in particular was possibly the best project manager for our department in all of the Asia Pacific region. They gave the most critical projects to this guy. He worked hellish hours to get a severely important project done, as well as managing the network program (project portfolio). Email was sent out that he'd go on a well-deserved extended vacation, and when he came back, he'd be reassigned to another critical role now that everything in Network and other stuff are under control. When he came back, he got his 2 weeks pay per year worked. That really pissed me off. If you're going to fire people, fire the worst guy, not the best guy. He was capable of doing the work of 3 project managers.
> They gave the most critical projects to this guy. He worked hellish hours to get a severely important project done, ... When he came back, he got his 2 weeks pay per year worked.
And thus was the lesson learned by one more person. We are all, each and every one of us, hardware to be virtualized and eliminated as soon as possible.
We are all, each and every one of us, an expense to be minimized. You may get along great with your boss and co-workers, mutual admiration all around, and the people may be loyal to each other, and really mean it.
But when the animal that is the corporation decides it needs to eject you, you're ejected. It may even fall to those mutually loyal people that you worked with to eject you. And they'll feel bad. But it's not them making the decision, it's the corporate animal.
So do a good job, but go home at night and play with your kids, or dog, or S.O. Don't waste your life at work, because work doesn't care about you.
... because an anecdote about someone good being let go is data showing that that's the way it normally happens.
... because the person who was let go and who worked very hard didn't learn anything, didn't improve his ability, couldn't take the tremendous experience he had gained and apply it in a new job or gasp start his own enterprise.
No, this isn't an anecdote that should serve as a red flag signalling IBM's continued move downward.
Far from it. This is an object lesson on why we shouldn't even try.
No, but it is an object lesson in being strategic in where and when you try. Go ahead and work long hours on projects that build your skills, that will make you look good to the organisation or to future employers (or clients), but don't do it out of loyalty.
Are you plainly asserting that "this isn't an anecdote," and pairing that with a sarcastic statement that "this is an object lesson", meaning that it's not an object lesson, to reinforce your assertion that it isn't an anecdote?
Or are you plainly asserting that "this is an object lesson," and pairing that with a sarcastic statement that "this isn't an anecdote," meaning that is is an anecdote, to reinforce your assertion that this is an object lesson?
Big corps like IBM share surprisingly similar traits as an military army. The general in charge of the army commonly only deals with the grand strategies and communicates with a few of his high-rank colonels. He has no idea who is the most skilled soldier or lieutenant, or captain. To him, they are only a number, a faceless expendable resource. Throughout the long history of wars, a lot of times low level heroic soldiers managed to win some battles but the army still lost the war simply due to the stupidity of the general.
The reason most large companies give 2+ months paid severance isn't because they are 'nice'--it's to get around the 60-notice period required when laying off more than X% of your work force (due to the WARN Act).
Did you notice that the quote at the top of mjn's comment says "here in the states"? The geography was clear from the start. The only person that did not realize this was you, but at least your ignorance was a nice excuse to get some America hating in before bedtime.
The op was explicitly about IBM in India and the redundancy there FFS. Where exactly does the WARN act apply to India? abotu as much as fucking TUPE does
Its fracking karma whoring civilians chiming in with anecdotes they heard from their mate down the golf club about labour law in a different country entirely that piss me off
Yes the original link was about IBM/India. Smoyer started a discussion by comparing the layoff in India to his personal experiences in the states. From smoyer down, this thread is about layoffs in the states. That is why someone commented on US labor laws. Why are you so threatened by a discussion of US labor law?
Just a note, they're not escorted out of the building to prevent them from talking to their colleagues, they're escorted out so they don't have a chance to do any damage to network stuff (rm -rf/deltree c:) etc.
Interesting. Are big tech companies less generous than big engineering firms in other fields? When companies like BP, Boeing, etc. have had layoff rounds, 3 months is just about the minimum package for an involuntary termination, and it's common to first offer much higher voluntary packages to reduce headcount without having to actually fire (sorry, "terminate") people, especially longtime employees. My dad accepted a voluntary severance package equal to 18 months' salary some years ago (something like "1 month per year of service up to a cap" is a common formula for voluntary offers).
I think this is in part due to what you mention: the morale of the existing employees can be significantly impacted by how their former colleagues were treated. Many people know each other out of work, so escorting the employees out of the building by security with no warning is not going to successfully keep them from talking, and if anything will probably just make them more resentful when they meet up for a beer after work to discuss how the layoff was handled. The former employees may also turn up in other situations (college recruiting, industry organizations, consulting/sales, etc.) where it's not to your company's advantage for there to be a lot of people floating around who hold a grudge about the manner in which they were abruptly laid off.