Major Shaw layoffs in the near future?

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah, but it makes a ton of sense.

"You will be let go. Right now we're offering you money and terms. Maybe not so much later. So you can go on your own terms with money, or ours."

If I knew the axe was coming down and I was given the option to take money to leave right away I think I'd do it rather than try clinging to my job by my fingernails.

Unemployment is absolutely rough, but uncertain employment under a dark cloud must be hell.

To quote a lot of ex-Nortel-ers whom I've worked with, you don't want to be the one turning off the lights with nothing left to show for it.

[Torture]

Pretty big news. Personally, I'd take a 4 week / year voluntary package.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

It's garbage. I was talking about this with a manager friend of mine yesterday and the anxiety this must be causing all shaw employees is outrageous. I'm sure they're going to get great quality work until this is dealt with.

Crap company is crap.

While unfortunate thousands and thousands of Calgarians working downtown have had to go through this over the recession and it's the reality of working for large companies.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

It's garbage. I was talking about this with a manager friend of mine yesterday and the anxiety this must be causing all shaw employees is outrageous. I'm sure they're going to get great quality work until this is dealt with.

Crap company is crap.

I guess they should have just laid off people without warning and with whatever case law determined severance they could have gotten away with?

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah, but it makes a ton of sense.

"You will be let go. Right now we're offering you money and terms. Maybe not so much later. So you can go on your own terms with money, or ours."

If I knew the axe was coming down and I was given the option to take money to leave right away I think I'd do it rather than try clinging to my job by my fingernails.

Unemployment is absolutely rough, but uncertain employment under a dark cloud must be hell.

Oh no I absoutley agree. I'd take the money and run with it.

[Swift]

According to the CBC story, the company expects 10% of the affected employees to take the package. Seems somewhat low, no?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

To quote a lot of ex-Nortel-ers whom I've worked with, you don't want to be the one turning off the lights with nothing left to show for it.

While I agree with that, the problem is that their employees may not be optimistic about their job prospects once they leave so it’s understandable why some would hope to keep their job instead. A severance package sounds great if you can find employment elsewhere, but if you can’t and you don’t have a very large safety net to sustain longterm unemployed it isn’t such a great thing.

[Violator]

This is normal for shaw/telus they always do this once a year

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

According to the CBC story, the company expects 10% of the affected employees to take the package. Seems somewhat low, no?

It depends, I am sure some details aren't public and, that's maybe why they aren't getting complete buy-in with that offer.

I would take it, but I wouldn't look at it like winning some kind of lottery. The job market isn't smoking hot yet, so you could get a 12 month payout but be out of work for a number of years still. If you can milk a stay with Shaw for a few years beyond this, it might make it worthwhile, but nothing is really guaranteed and you could be gone the next day and without this VSP.

[calgarygringo]

I did a short manager stint at Superstore a few years ago. They do the same thing every year. The reasoning there especially with union raises is that the oldtimers take the pkg then the newbies come in and are hired at way less on the budget benefits and all. Could be a similar scenario

[Bill Bumface]

When I went through 4 rounds of layoffs, I sure wish I had the option to take the money and run.

This seems like a pretty humane way of going about this, all things considered.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I believe this is why Pied Piper's compression algorithm has been buried by tech companies as it would lead to heavy 4k content not using up near as much bandwidth.

Anyone care to elaborate on this? Sorry for potential thread derailment, but google is full of "is it real" articles. I've never heard of this at all, but this post makes it sound like Big Oil vs. fuel efficiency/electric.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by calgarygringo

I did a short manager stint at Superstore a few years ago. They do the same thing every year. The reasoning there especially with union raises is that the oldtimers take the pkg then the newbies come in and are hired at way less on the budget benefits and all. Could be a similar scenario

No no no, I was assured a long time ago by a number of posters on this board that an employer would never do such a thing because hiring/training costs would vastly outweigh any potential salary/vacation/benefits savings an employer would make. Unless perhaps I wasn’t so off base with my claim and maybe those who were making that rebuttal were actually wrong.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Anyone care to elaborate on this? Sorry for potential thread derailment, but google is full of "is it real" articles. I've never heard of this at all, but this post makes it sound like Big Oil vs. fuel efficiency/electric.

It’s a reference to Silicon Valley.

[psicodude]

I think a lot of posters are missing the bigger picture here. Shaw is essentially replacing a bunch of people with software/AI/automation to improve customer service. So your first point of support contact with Shaw will be with AI and if it can't help you, you will be passed to a human.

This is just the tip of the iceberg coming over the next few years. All large corporations that are required to provide B2C support are exploring this right now. I feel bad for those affected, but get used to it.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

No no no, I was assured a long time ago by a number of posters on this board that an employer would never do such a thing because hiring/training costs would vastly outweigh any potential salary/vacation/benefits savings an employer would make. Unless perhaps I wasn’t so off base with my claim and maybe those who were making that rebuttal were actually wrong.

A successful organization will shed a certain percentage of employees, every year. Some employees simply do not produce. They do not have a right to a job, they must produce value. As you know, in a union situation even the weak are sometimes protected, but that is not always the case (the Canada Post union in particular is feeding upon itself these days).

This is an example of Shaw not firing the low performers, but rather opening the offer to everyone. They're not even unionized. Its quite fair. It might not be a good move for Shaw as the top performers might consider the company is failing, and jump ship to better opportunities, leaving the low performers behind. The counter to that is, Shaw is restructuring because they're losing cable subscribers and with this they will emerge stronger and more profitable, and the remaining employees will be part of future success.

Refer to whichever posters you want, the base fact is Shaw is responding to market conditions, and doing so very fairly to their employees. In a workforce of many thousand there will always be need to hire even if you are firing at the same time. There is no obligation to transition a low performing employee and nor should there be. If the company needs a specific type of talent they can advertise and hire for it, and existing employees have all the right to apply. Most companies of size including Shaw often allow internal applications in addition to external ones.

[bubbsy]

That's a pretty decent package, even for younger folks, especially if they are not going common law rules.

I got a similar voluntary package out recently after 14 years of service at my company, but the key thing my lawyer ensured was in the paperwork, was that this severance would not be clawed back in the event that i find new employment.

I strongly suggest shaw folks here ensure they get that clarified. Common law, at least here in ON states that the severance is paid until the ex-employee finds new employment, at which point they must notify the necessary parties, or they will be required to claw back any double dipping of salary+severance.

If there is verbiage to ensure that the severance will be received regardless of if you find employment, if you can find a job quick, one could basically double up their pre-tax income for the year... with the unfortunate consequence of being heavily taxed unfortunately.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Kjesse

A successful organization will shed a certain percentage of employees, every year. Some employees simply do not produce. They do not have a right to a job, they must produce value. As you know, in a union situation even the weak are sometimes protected, but that is not always the case (the Canada Post union in particular is feeding upon itself these days).

In a union all members are protected equally, layoffs would be applied based on seniority. I’d be interested to hear your take on how the postal workers union is “feeding” upon itself.

This is an example of Shaw not firing the low performers, but rather opening the offer to everyone. They're not even unionized. Its quite fair. It might not be a good move for Shaw as the top performers might consider the company is failing, and jump ship to better opportunities, leaving the low performers behind. The counter to that is, Shaw is restructuring because they're losing cable subscribers and with this they will emerge stronger and more profitable, and the remaining employees will be part of future success.

They will be part of the future success until the company decides to restructure again. Which if this current move(based on it not being a matter of getting rid of low performers) isn’t based on creating a more efficient workplace, could be sooner than later.

Refer to whichever posters you want, the base fact is Shaw is responding to market conditions, and doing so very fairly to their employees. In a workforce of many thousand there will always be need to hire even if you are firing at the same time. There is no obligation to transition a low performing employee and nor should there be. If the company needs a specific type of talent they can advertise and hire for it, and existing employees have all the right to apply. Most companies of size including Shaw often allow internal applications in addition to external ones.

I actually don’t disagree with most of what you are saying, my point was that these types of things do happen and often times it is a matter of reducing costs by replacing existing higher paid employees with new lower paid employees who will overall provide cost savings in the long run despite the hiring and training costs. It makes financial sense for larger corporations, I don’t debate that, my point is that the posters who previously acted as if I was completely off base when I made this point before should probably reconsider their position.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

When I went through 4 rounds of layoffs, I sure wish I had the option to take the money and run.

This seems like a pretty humane way of going about this, all things considered.

Humane, yes but from a human resources perspective it might be a bit perplexing. The kinds of people who will take the money and run are more likely to be people who have the talent / skills to get another job in short order and likely are people you want to retain. Whereas all other things being equal the people who are concerned about getting decent a job before a year's worth of severance runs out are more likely to be the kinds of people who don't pull their weight relative to what they get paid.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Humane, yes but from a human resources perspective it might be a bit perplexing. The kinds of people who will take the money and run are more likely to be people who have the talent / skills to get another job in short order and likely are people you want to retain. Whereas all other things being equal the people who are concerned about getting decent a job before a year's worth of severance runs out are more likely to be the kinds of people who don't pull their weight relative to what they get paid.

So anyone who is worried about the job market or the lack of competition/available jobs in the telecommunications industry should be considered a poor performer because they would prefer to keep their current job and aren’t wanting to jump all over a severance package? If they didn’t pull their weight relative to their wage why wouldn’t they just be fired?