6 ms·
And they say we don't have ageism in the industry... : "As with prior layoffs, or "resource actions" to use IBM's euphemism, we're told those affected are subs
by myth_drannon 2y ago
And they say we don't have ageism in the industry... :
"As with prior layoffs, or "resource actions" to use IBM's euphemism, we're told those affected are substantially in the 50-55 age bracket with 20-24 years of seniority.
"It seems exclusively people in L7 and L8 and L9 bands, at the top of the band in payment structure," the insider said.""
- kolbe 2y agoDisparate outcomes do not imply disparate treatment
- BadHumans 2y ago> As with prior layoffs When all of your outcomes result in same treatment of the same group of individuals, there just might be a little fire to that smoke.
- kolbe 2y ago"Might" is a delightfully cop out word. Anything "might" be true.
- toss1 2y agoDisparate outcomes do not conclusively determine disparate treatment Disparate outcomes most definitely imply disparate treatment, at least enough to merit further investigation
- kolbe 2y agoSo how does this work? Asian Americans are vastly over represented relative to their population in higher education. This "implies" they've been receiving special treatment or favoritism?
- toss1 2y agoPretty much; might or might not; "suggest" may be a better word. It means there may be something to check into. What OTHER advantages, disadvantages, preparation levels, etc. are working for and/or against that group? Can those factors account for the differential? What is the groups' actual relative performance in the situation (i.e., do they tend to perform at|above|below the level to which they have risen, e.g., legacy college admissions with "Gentleman's Cs" are performing below)? And so forth. The point is that statistical disparities are not conclusive, but are most often indicative of some kind of structural favoritism, like smoke to fire. Not always, and you can always cherry-pick some counter-example, but the default assumption is that it merits investigation.
- kolbe 2y ago[flagged]
- toss1 2y ago[flagged]
- kolbe 2y agoFWIW, I didn't flag you. Just wanted to say you're accusing me of a straw man, but when I give a particular example that is a concrete example within a general statement, that's not a straw man. Between the two of us, I am looking at a well-researched and widely understood example of why a disparate outcome doesn't actually imply what we would intuitively think, while you are talking about metaphors of smoke and "taking closer looks" as if those justify angrily jumping to conclusions. If you have some sort of correlation coefficient to justify jumping to conclusions even mildly, I'd appreciate that contribution. But "something isn't equal" isn't even necessarily reason to look into something further, let alone a reason to presume the cause. Nothing is ever equal. Equality is a fictional concept, and doing deep dives into every example of it would exhaust our collective resources.
- manuelmoreale 2y agoIf the goal is to save money, isn’t it reasonable to axe the most senior people which are probably also paid more than junior ones? And I’m not saying it’s a smart strategy, it’s probably idiotic. Just saying it’s not really ageist.
- whatshisface 2y agoThe cost/productivity balance is supposed to have been considered for hiring and promotion; when a layoff predominately targets a specific division or pay level it means the strategy leading up to that point had been wrong.
- manuelmoreale 2y agoOh I’m not arguing against that. And as I said, I don’t think it’s a smart way of running things. I’m just saying that it may not be an age thing but simply a money thing. That’s all.
- manuelmoreale 2y agoHave another thoughts re-reading your comment this morning. > when a layoff predominately targets a specific division or pay level it means the strategy leading up to that point had been wrong. This is fair but isn’t also this what we want? Like if you run a company, if you realize that mistakes were made, isn’t it reasonable to expect a correction? And by “what we want” I mean the admitting a mistake and correcting it.
- whatshisface 2y agoIt means that there's not a "most natural" level for layoffs, because the center line that layoffs indicate deviation from has all the pay levels in balance. Reducing staff at high pay levels doesn't a priori make the best trade.
- groby_b 2y agoYeah, it is, unless you can make the case that IBM doesn't need all those leaders any more. What will happen is that they rehire, and rehire young.
- brailsafe 2y ago> resource actions I've always thought the term "resource" was dehumanizing, but at least on its own it could be interpreted positively, but "resource actions" is just upsetting
- acheron 2y ago“Livestock culling”
- doubled112 2y agoI’m sure they’ll find more meat to grind.
- justinclift 2y agoMaybe Skynet starts when IBM tries that shit on Watson? ;)
- 7qW24A 2y agoRA’ing people at the top of their band means that they’ve topped out skill-wise. These aren’t senior people; it’s people who will never get promoted past 7 or 8 (which are quite junior) but have been accruing comp adjustments for a long time. Most teams will lay off a 7 that is getting paid more than a 9 by virtue of being at the company for 20 years.
- osnium123 2y agoDo you think it’s a good idea for employees to voluntarily ask for pay cuts so that they are on the low end of the pay scale for a job grade?
- lotsofpulp 2y agoBetter to look for another job where you think you might not be as disposable, even if at lower pay.
- jhallenworld 2y agoMaybe this is true skill-wise, but there is also productivity to consider. I knew a band 9, who was definitely not going to be promoted STSM (band 10), but was extremely productive. I'm sure he was paid well, better than most band 10s. Band 10 and above include good soft-skills, people who can persuade the industry and organization, give TED talks, etc.
- myth_drannon 2y agoI never saw any significant compensation increase by staying in the company at the same level. A long tenure at level 7 will have a very stagnant compensation and much lower than a newly hired level 7 and lower than 9.