5 ms·

I just participated in a "Voluntary Reduction In Force" at (company I can't mention for legal reasons). It was applied across all of R&D but only people with 15

I just participated in a "Voluntary Reduction In Force" at (company I can't mention for legal reasons). It was applied across all of R&D but only people with 15 years or more of service were allowed to apply. We're being paid a week of salary and healthcare for each year worked so it's not too bad. But even so it was abundantly clear who they were targeting.

maxxxxx 9y ago
One week of salary per year served is actually pretty bad. That money is gone quickly. In my company it used to be 4 weeks per year. Now it's two.
- cableshaft 9y ago
  Wow 4 weeks? I didn't know there was companies like that out there, especially now. Our company reduced it to 1 week per year (claimed it was the 'standard', and it would save them money so they could spend it on being so innovative elsewhere), then reduced 401k matching from them paying once per quarter to you have to be employed on December 31 of that year or they don't have to match for the entire year (crazy, I know), and then after they got those two things in place started axing tens of thousands of people's jobs, and saved tons of money in the process, I'm sure. These policy changes also lead to people voluntarily resigning and thus giving them lower layoff numbers too. I'm probably not sticking around much longer myself, but I had a few too many life changes (like buying a house) that kept me from leaving earlier.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    I am sure the top guys in your company took a significant amount of the savings as bonus.
  - CommandStrip 9y ago
    When Microsoft did the test layoffs in 2014, I believe they included one month of salary per year of service.
  - vkou 9y ago
    It was ~4 weeks/year at Kodak. I think it still is. Source: My dad was laid off from Kodak... Twice (Pre, and post-bankruptcy.)
gaius 9y ago
We're being paid a week of salary and healthcare for each year worked so it's not too bad A month per year worked is the very minimum of “reasonable”. You are being royally shafted.

maxxxxx 9y ago

One week of salary per year served is actually pretty bad. That money is gone quickly. In my company it used to be 4 weeks per year. Now it's two.

cableshaft 9y ago
Wow 4 weeks? I didn't know there was companies like that out there, especially now. Our company reduced it to 1 week per year (claimed it was the 'standard', and it would save them money so they could spend it on being so innovative elsewhere), then reduced 401k matching from them paying once per quarter to you have to be employed on December 31 of that year or they don't have to match for the entire year (crazy, I know), and then after they got those two things in place started axing tens of thousands of people's jobs, and saved tons of money in the process, I'm sure. These policy changes also lead to people voluntarily resigning and thus giving them lower layoff numbers too. I'm probably not sticking around much longer myself, but I had a few too many life changes (like buying a house) that kept me from leaving earlier.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I am sure the top guys in your company took a significant amount of the savings as bonus.
- CommandStrip 9y ago
  When Microsoft did the test layoffs in 2014, I believe they included one month of salary per year of service.
- vkou 9y ago
  It was ~4 weeks/year at Kodak. I think it still is. Source: My dad was laid off from Kodak... Twice (Pre, and post-bankruptcy.)

gaius 9y ago

We're being paid a week of salary and healthcare for each year worked so it's not too bad A month per year worked is the very minimum of “reasonable”. You are being royally shafted.