^ meant to say I agreed with the PP

Anonymous wrote:It’s a mix of department and budget needs and priorities, and who is seen as a good performer. They often lay off very good performers though. It’s hard not to take it personally, but you shouldn’t. Corporate America sux.

Np. I’ve overseen many RIFS (in legal) and there are ways around WARN. As far as who gets laid off, it is truly a hodge podge. Yes, low performers can be part of it, but there are also plenty of good people who get laid off for various reasons - shifting business priorities, etc. For the most part, it is not personal.

Anyone who says differently hasn’t been on the inside of this process.

It’s a mix of department and budget needs and priorities, and who is seen as a good performer. They often lay off very good performers though. It’s hard not to take it personally, but you shouldn’t. Corporate America sux.

All very helpful— thank you!

Anonymous wrote:My employer first considered which departments were bloated. Ex. HR and marketing, but not legal or tax. Then they asked managers in those departments for a list of people in roles that, if eliminated, wouldn’t have much of an impact on operations. In some cases, these were low performers but in others, it was the job that caused the elimination, not the person. HR reviewed the lists to ensure there weren’t too many people that could create appearances of discrimination.

Reviewing the list for the “appearance of discrimination” is literally racial/sex based discrimination itself.

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes they deliberately pick people from all demographic categories so they can't be accused of discriminating.

Usually at the bottom of it, they get rid of disliked or at best neutrally-viewed employees. The unconnected.

+1 unless an entire project, product line, or department is being closed.

You can get around WARN by paying enough severance to cover the WARN period. So in practice, the day you “lay people off” you file the WARN paperwork and have people stop working for the duration of the warn period, paid. Which is their severance period as well.

As far as how you choose, in my experience each leader has a cost savings or headcount number to hit and they make their list of who they can best live without to meet that number. Then HR will check to make sure you haven’t disparately targeted protected groups in who was selected.

Troublemakers, malcontents, activists and social justice warrior usually get the axe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes they deliberately pick people from all demographic categories so they can't be accused of discriminating.

Usually at the bottom of it, they get rid of disliked or at best neutrally-viewed employees. The unconnected.

+1

It’s about cutting numbers/budget. It feels personal but it’s not. Always build your emergency fund. It’s still awful of course.

It’s absolutely personal. They kept who they liked and were buddies with, I mean “connected”.

My employer first considered which departments were bloated. Ex. HR and marketing, but not legal or tax. Then they asked managers in those departments for a list of people in roles that, if eliminated, wouldn’t have much of an impact on operations. In some cases, these were low performers but in others, it was the job that caused the elimination, not the person. HR reviewed the lists to ensure there weren’t too many people that could create appearances of discrimination.

I'm newly in management. I had to give a list of employees top to bottom in the department. It was not for layoffs but it was for my skip level manager x2 to be able to protect/retain in my line ppl in a reorg. I assumed at the time it was for a layoff, but they just got moved. Presumably they'll keep that list. My ranking was not based on competence or potential, but based on who could wear the most hats in the department.

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes they deliberately pick people from all demographic categories so they can't be accused of discriminating.

Usually at the bottom of it, they get rid of disliked or at best neutrally-viewed employees. The unconnected.

+1

It’s about cutting numbers/budget. It feels personal but it’s not. Always build your emergency fund. It’s still awful of course.

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes they deliberately pick people from all demographic categories so they can't be accused of discriminating.

Usually at the bottom of it, they get rid of disliked or at best neutrally-viewed employees. The unconnected.

OP here and thank you! This does make sense as they worked in a very small department which does not have much clout within the organization.

So sad because they are highly competent and had trained multiple workers from the more highly visible departments.

It’s huge loss to the employer and they don’t even recognize it.

Guess I’m naive to think they would look at each employee’s strengths and where they would best fit in the organization prior to a layoff.

Sometimes they deliberately pick people from all demographic categories so they can't be accused of discriminating.

Usually at the bottom of it, they get rid of disliked or at best neutrally-viewed employees. The unconnected.

I always thought it was done by the adage “last in, first out”? So the newest employees would be laid off first?

A friend’s employer just laid off 50 people and it seems so random, just trying to understand how they made their selections.

In this case we can rule out— seniority, pay grade, experience, flexibility, productivity.



Also, these layoffs are not on the MD WARN list— not sure how they were able to bypass that.

https://labor.maryland.gov/employment/warn.shtml