D
Deleted member 67144 scul
Guest
First off, you're talking specifically about returning from MOBs. I'm talking about removing people in general in mass layoffs where people can get selected for any ridiculous reason because it's a companywide reduction in force and things gotta move.
Second, you know about my company and industry and other industries which do similar mass layoffs? You've experienced company-wide layoffs impacting 1,000s of people and the dynamics behind them? You've made decisions on who stays and who goes and have had to fight to keep people from getting impacted for the most ridiculous reasons imaginable (like a manager not liking someone for any silly personal reason because of how easy it is to get rid of people in these big layoffs)? You've personally known people who got picked for mass layoffs over other people because of their Reserve/Guard status (obviously spun like it was random selection by higher-ups or put forth as "your title/pay doesn't fit in with restructuring plans", but I've been on the inside of such discussions to know such explanations are typically BS)? If not, then I hate to admit it but you may be encroaching in my lane. Let's for a second forget about how the truth gets masked behind the "business needs" of mass layoffs, or people you have had no contact with. We have a user here bubblehead who got singled out in a past job in his third week due to his Reserve status. If that isn't a very extreme and obvious violation, I don't know what is.
With that said, there's evidently a misunderstanding. I think what you may be thinking I discussed singling people out. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not even talking about some guy who just came back from a MOB, either. If you MOB and come back, USERRA protects you there, and it's very obvious what's going on if you get singled out and fired right after returning. Obviously there's going to be trouble if out-of-the-blue you're laying someone off, with or without a MOB. That's difficult to justify. I'm talking about something different.
I'm talking about executives and senior management looking at their portfolios and saying they need, for example, 30% reduction in force in these X departments across the company. When you have a purge like that, depends on the company (Amazon which was discussed to death in the work hours thread is a good example as they have regularly scheduled purges), but to some extent anything goes, and because so many people are being impacted all at once, any cut can be 'justified' by financial reasons (and to people affected, that's usually the only reason given even though it's very often more than that). Just months ago I had a few people laid off from my current team for the most inane reasons imaginable. One was for a basic design disagreement that was had with one of the leads about a year beforehand. You know why he wasn't laid off earlier? It's a lot harder to justify when you're singling someone out, even without any special legal protections like USERRA.
So when in the same companywide layoff, I found out a couple friends were laid off because of "cost cutting" (that was the official reason they were given), the reality of the matter was that their respective department leads were obviously given instructions to get rid of people and had to make difficult choices. When it came to "employees with 'normal' lives" and "guy who has a 'conflict of interest' second job and may leave to the Mideast for a year within the next 6 months", it was a very easy administrative decision for them to make. One of them, his direct manager told him about the "picking straws". The other asked around and eventually found out. Does that violate USERRA? Sure. But when the official story is "You were one of 20+ people laid off in your department alone out of a couple thousand people and has nothing to do with you personally", there's not much you can do with that, and did try too. What happened? They didn't have a good enough case to stand on because tons of people were getting cut and management were playing eeny, meeny, miny, moe half the time and it was within the scope of business strategy and all sorts of other "official" reasons. If no layoffs were going on and they were singled out, then that smells a lot more. Obviously, no management with have a brain would get rid of someone in that scenario. You do it when a clear opportunity, like a free-for-all mass layoff, arises.
Of course, there's a million other false excuses that can be had. "Your performance was slipping in recent months", "Higher-ups decided to outsource your work", etc. But forget about this layoff. I saw the same thing with reservists in prior layoffs also. It's shitty, but it happens. I've personally been involved in such layoff discussions (and there's obviously been discussions regarding me, as with everyone all the way up to the VP level). You know how crazy it can get? Have you ever had one of your bosses come to you, and ask you to say a name, and whatever name you say is getting put on that list? If not, then consider yourself lucky you don't work in an environment where you'd be foolish not to consistently watch your back. Maybe you're a GS? If so, you're as protected as protected gets and it entirely makes sense why you've had the experiences you've had. The government screwing over a government employee for working in 2 roles for the government makes no sense at all. Sometimes I make the joke that if I went to work for one of the SYSCOMs I'd never lose my job.
In my case, the exasperation was quickly replaced by curiosity and problem-solving which ultimately saved my behind.
That solves that. Isn't this wonderful?
