#retention

Is it worth staying through year end for the bonus this year? I'm seeing mixed views on expected payout vs target. Do you get a payout if you are on payroll as of 12/31, so leaving in January would be OK?

As we focus on retaining top talent, is the bank considering reinstating the discretionary 1% 401(k) match that teammates have received in the past?

Let’s be honest, most people aren’t staying because they’re happy here. They’re staying because the job market hasn’t given them a good enough reason to jump ship yet and they still need income to survive.

But also be honest about what that means. That’s not retention. That’s a fu--ing ticking time b0mb.

The second the job market really opens back up, all those people who have been quietly putting up with 5x RTO BS, sh---y morale, constant cuts and pointless bullsh-t are going to start walking…. And AT&T is going to be completely unprepared for it.

In the next 3-5 years, you’re going to have massive numbers of people retire, get surplussed or leave voluntarily. A ton of institutional and systems knowledge is going to walk out the door at the same time. Who’s replacing them?

You can’t gut and abuse the workforce for years and then magically find experienced people when you suddenly need them. And you sure as he-l can’t replace decades of knowledge with some new hire and a fu--ing training deck.

AT&T needs to stop obsessing over who it can cut and who sits where, and start figuring out who it absolutely cannot afford to lose.

Especially the non-pension employees. They aren’t tied here forever. When the market improves, they can leave, and they absolutely will.

The “leadership” team seems to think people will tolerate anything because they have nowhere else to go. They think they have a hostage situation created by a bad job market.

When that changes, we’re going to see just how many people were actually choosing to stay.

Tick-Tock, John…

There’s a point where “culture” stops being what a company says on LinkedIn and becomes what people actually experience when they work there.
You can post all the polished messages you want about people-first leadership, growth, transparency, and culture—but saying those things doesn’t make them true. Culture is reflected in who gets listened to, who gets protected, who gets developed, who gets held accountable, and ultimately, who chooses to stay.
If leadership continues asking the same small circle of people whether everything is okay—and those people are the ones benefiting from the current system—of course the answer is going to be yes. But that is an incredibly narrow way to measure the health of an organization, especially one that desperately needs to right the ship.
At some point, leadership has to get uncomfortable enough to actually listen. Not just to the loudest voices, the favorites, the “yes” people, or the people sitting closest to power. Talk to the people who left. Talk to the people who stopped speaking up. Look at retention. Look at engagement. Look at production beyond the surface-level numbers. Look at what happened to the travelers and relationships that were handed off to people celebrated as “top performers.” Did those relationships grow? Did those travelers stay? Were those desks actually nurtured—or were they simply inherited?
And if the same people have been sitting in leadership seats for three years while the same problems continue to surface, it is fair to ask whether the problem is no longer the circumstances—it’s the people in the seats.
Leadership should not be a talking head. It should not be gossip, cliques, politics, favoritism, or protecting the people you personally like. Leadership means fighting for your people, advocating when it is uncomfortable, holding everyone to the same standard, and having the courage to admit when something isn’t working.
Stop fluffing certain desks while demanding everyone else prove themselves over and over again. Stop celebrating numbers without examining how they were achieved or what happens after the handoff. Stop confusing loyalty to a leadership circle with loyalty to the company.
Three years is enough time to make meaningful change.
At some point, continuing to do the same things, empowering the same people, protecting the same behaviors, and expecting a different outcome becomes exactly what we all know it is: insanity.
What makes this particularly sad is that this company once talked so passionately about being different. About putting people first. About creating something better than the corporate environments so many people had experienced elsewhere.
Somewhere along the way, it started becoming the very thing it said it would never become.
Profits matter. Performance matters. Growth matters. But people have to matter too.
And when good people continue walking out the door, leadership shouldn’t be asking how to improve the messaging around culture.
They should be asking what happened to it.

The free tier's biggest feature, the malware and phishing blocking, is invisible. Customers never see it work. No alert, no moment, nothing to point to. What they can see is the paid tier, and that's one camera and one sensor for $15 a month, more than Ring charges for full professional monitoring on an unlimited system. It only runs on our gateway, so the customers most likely to leave us are excluded from the thing meant to keep them.And we're not a company people rate highly right now. Cable ISPs sit at the bottom of the satisfaction rankings, well behind fiber and 5G. Free doesn't fix that. It just adds something invisible to a bill people already think is too high.
I think it's a fine retention product. I don't think it's a new category, and I think we should be honest with ourselves about the difference.

The company has consistently performed at a low 3-star rating over the past decade, and now your main focus will be retention!-) GTFOH

Most of the people working here today probably won’t be here three years from now. That’s the part “leadership” seems to be completely missing.

There are huge numbers of employees already past Rule of 75 who are just waiting for the right severance offer or their retirement date, whichever comes first. Add in everyone without a pension who is already looking for the exit, and AT&T is about to lose an enormous amount of institutional knowledge. And who’s replacing them?

AT&T has spent years cutting, freezing, consolidating and making the place less attractive to the exact people who are supposed to become the next generation of experts. You can’t keep gutting the workforce and then act surprised when there’s nobody left who knows how to do the work.

Stankey is right that demographics are a problem. He’s just looking at the wrong side of the equation.

The answer isn’t simply squeezing more work out of fewer people. It’s retaining the people under 55, developing replacements before the experienced workforce walks out the door, and actually giving talented people a reason to build a career here.

Instead, we’re making the job less attractive with 5x RTO, cutting benefits, cutting headcount and watching experienced people walk. You can’t retire decades of knowledge and replace it with a PowerPoint and a new hire.

AT&T is going to find out very quickly that you can’t cut your way through a talent shortage.

When I first joined, there was a real sense that people cared about the work and about each other. That's mostly disappeared now. Years of changes have completely stripped away whatever it was that made the place special, and we're now at the point where loyalty and experience don't count for much. It's depressing watching a company lose the culture that made people want to stay.

This post on Reddit has a comment that someone’s husband was offered 100k counteroffer retention bonus when he tried to resign. Base pay 600k.
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedhealthgroup/s/PfEIguU2fk

So the company that is laying people off throughout the year and gives pennies for raises to most of its employees will give a 100k retention bonus to what is probably a lower level exec who tries to resign (assuming lower level because the higher up execs make 7-10 figures.)

Message for UHG/UHC/Optum…. Your executives are not the face of the company, the people whose jobs bring them into direct daily interactions with your members are the face of the company. Minuscule raises that can’t even keep up with inflation, elimination of bonuses, rising caseloads all lower morale. You can’t improve your public image when the face of your company has low morale. No amount of company culture pep talk will fix this because your own employees don’t feel valued.

The vast majority of people who remain here are just waiting for MR75 or to see what happens with leadership.

There are a lot of employees hoping that when Stankey is gone and a new CEO comes in, one of the first things they do is take a hard look at this completely overextended RTO policy.

Because if the new leadership comes in and decides to keep five-day RTO, I don’t think we’ve seen anything yet.

There are a lot of people who are tolerating this right now because they’re hoping the policy changes. Take that hope away, and you’re going to see a lot of people make their exit at the same time.

And that’s when we’ll find out just how much talent this policy has actually pushed toward the door.

AT&T can change course or keep doubling down. But I genuinely believe the consequences of this decision will become impossible to ignore by 2028.

This company may sink or swim based on what happens with RTO. You ain’t seen nothing yet!

This is the only place I've worked where tenure is a disadvantage. New people get attention, praise, and opportunity, while most of long-timers get ignored, overloaded, and quietly pushed aside. The loyalty that used to mean something now feels like a trap.

Got this from someone who was laid off. Decision was made based on:

1) retention cost (those who have not been promoted for a long time in the same position, or those close to retirement age)
2) performance reviews from last 2 years (NS = chopping block)
3) last in first out (new hires)

Centene should give all employees with an approved vsp + separation date beyond 9/4/26, a quarterly bonus for staying and still pay their full severance!

Used to be Dell employees who left Dell would come back at some point to work at Dell, this is no longer true not sure why

I always assumed if you gave notice at T-Mobile, they'd just let you go. But a colleague of mine was recently on his way out, then mysteriously decided to stay. He wouldn't say why, but he did hint that the company came back with a better offer. I didn't know they did that.

Are you staying @VZ because you believe in the company or because you don't have another option?

Ask around and you'll hear real frustration. With Gunjan/leadership, with direction, with a culture that's betting worse, high workloads, burnout.... But turnover is basically nothing. People stay for years, sometimes decades.

That's a weird combo. Usually when people are this unhappy, they leave. So what's actually keeping everyone here?

My guesses:

Golden handcuffs. Pension, benefits, tenure perks that are hard to walk away from
Grass isn't greener thinking. Assuming other places have the same problems anyway
Complaining isn't the same as job hunting. Sometimes it's just how people vent
Not a lot of comparable roles nearby to jump to

Anyone who's been here a while, what's actually kept you?

Wellsfargo is annoying employees and so they are taking money to other banks, I am doing it too, Laid off , retired employees doing it too.
Wells should come up with some plan to retain good employees and keep them happy.

People are leaving in droves. I'm wondering if there's anything that could actually convince you to stay, or are you just done?

Our best people are leaving and nobody seems to care. The average tenure is dropping fast. How do they think this will end?

What’s keeping GB gainfully employed? Is he special or actually a great leader?

If Stinky’s goal was to convince younger employees to stay, publicly taking shots at Gen Z over wanting flexibility wasn’t exactly the way to do it. His comments came across as dismissive, disrespectful and completely out of touch.

Here’s what this pre-computer dinosaur fails to understand. We grew up online, made friends online, had relationships online. We learned online, collaborated online, and even went to school and got degrees online. We don’t need a five-day RTO mandate to know how to be connected and productive.

Nobody is asking to never come into an office. People are asking for flexibility. Instead of trying to understand that, leadership keeps acting like it’s a work ethic problem.

Then they wonder why younger employees don’t stick around.

Maybe stop blaming the workforce and start asking why the workforce isn’t buying what your so called “leadership” is selling.

IMO. These days, the company pays no importance to retention. The majority of XOM employees in the US will likely have a maximum of 5 years at the company before they finally realize that they are better off somewhere else. 10 years maximum if they are a glutten for punishment and think they are going to make it to retirement eligibility. Considering RE being 55 with 15 years of experience. Who in HR has the statistics of the last 5 years of attrition with the why they were separated, for Campus hires and Experienced hires? What are the breakdowns of left on own will versus MLRP?
My prediction for the future employment longevity in the US for MPT for someone based upon when hired is the following:
Age of hire: 22 - 25, probability of lasting 30+ PA cycles 3-5%.
Age of hire: 25 - 30, probablity of lasting 25 - 30 PA cycles 5-7%.
Age of hire: 30 - 35, probability of lasting 20 - 25 PA cycles 2%
Age of hire: 35 - 40, probability of lasting 15 - 20 PA cycles 0.5%
Age of hire: 40+, probability of lasting 15+ PA cycles 0%

HR does not care about retention. People are a commodity to them and they have sources of cheap labor outside of the US that are going to run the company.

Coming over from Oxy board to check here..

People claim that you’re giving technical staff a bonus for retention. Is this true?

A lot of people are reading Xerox’s retention plan as if it were a secret bankruptcy announcement.

It is not.

What it actually says is simple: "Xerox is under pressure". No surprise there.

"Xerox is going through transformation, restructuring, Lexmark integration and balance-sheet work". Also not news.

"Xerox wants selected critical people to stay for the next two years while that work gets done".

That is the point.

The plan is cash-based and paid in 8 quarterly instalments. So nobody gets a giant cheque on day one.

If someone leaves, they generally lose the unpaid part. That is why it is called a retention plan :-)

Note: the 8-K says the CEO and CFO are not expected to participate. So the “top two are cashing out before collapse” theory is weak.

Does this mean Xerox is financially healthy? No.

Does it prove Chapter 11 is imminent? Also no.

Does it prove delisting? No.

The serious interpretation is much simpler: Xerox is in a high-risk execution period and is paying selected people to stay long enough to help get through it.

Fair questions: Who gets it? How much? Are they the right people?

Bad questions:
“Is this proof of bankruptcy?”
“Is this proof the stock is going to zero?”
“Is this SLT stealing bonuses before the end?”

Occam's razor tells us that the simplest explanation is usually the one closest to the truth.

So here it goes: Xerox is buying continuity during an extremely difficult transformation (with no guarantee that it will be completed).

No conspiracy required.

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001770450/000119312526294480/d111689d8k.htm

I look around and I see so many talented people putting up with so much nonsense. We all deserve so much better than what we're getting here and what we've been getting for years. It actually surprises me that more people haven't already decided to leave and find something better.

I think it's very possible that more people applied than what they anticipated.

imagine if the target was 8,000 eliminations and they received 12,000 applications... but of those 12,000 applications, only 3,000 were on the elimination list. they still need to cut the 5,000... so what do they do? maybe accept 1,000 of the VSPs and still have to cut 4,000...

now for those 8,000 VSP applications they have to reject? that's a LOT of pi---d off people who will probably be looking to leave. now they have to figure out how to retain those employees.

and for those 4,000 being cut... they will be upset too.

that is probably the clusterf*ck they have gotten themselves into.

July is about to be a headache for everyone.

Nintendo announced a 10% increase in employee base salaries. Company President Shuntaro Furukawa confirmed this decision. The move aims to maintain competitive working conditions. It also seeks to retain valuable specialists within the company. This strategy contrasts with widespread layoffs across the gaming industry.

https://ixbt.games/en/news/2026/06/27/419575-nintendo-podniala-zarplaty-na-fone-uvolnenii-v-igrovoi-industrii.html

Why are there so many Sirius sellers leaving, or left, the company? CDW is hemorrhaging all the 20 year customer relationships? As a CDW seller, I was assigned a lot of these accounts, that came with very high quotas and they don't want to do business with me. My management said these all would be easy accounts to farm and my income would double. I am starting to realize CDW management doesn't understand why customers buy from who they do and most of them that I know of never had a job selling directly.

If leadership is reading this, I encourage you to take an honest look at P. Di-kerson's track record since she joined. Consider the number of people who have left the team, the overall level of dissatisfaction, and the noticeable decline in morale.

I would challenge leadership to run a truly anonymous team survey. I believe the results would highlight concerns that many people are currently reluctant to raise openly.

Her management style creates an environment of fear rather than trust. Public criticism is common, feedback is often delivered in front of others, and people become more focused on avoiding blame than on doing their best work. Instead of encouraging ownership and collaboration, it drives people to protect themselves.

There is also very little visible self-reflection or willingness to acknowledge when her own approach may be contributing to problems. Accountability appears to be expected from everyone else, but rarely from herself.

I hope leadership takes these concerns seriously, as I believe the current environment is having a significant negative impact on employee wellbeing, engagement, and retention.

Executives and their narcissistic egos still can’t accept that the world changed.

Five years after the pandemic, employees have overwhelmingly shown they value flexibility. The data keeps showing hybrid work isn’t going away. Yet some leaders remain obsessed with attendance, visibility, and control instead of results. That’s exactly what we’re seeing at AT&T.

Instead of focusing on performance, productivity, innovation, talent retention, or competitiveness, leadership is focused on presence reports, badge swipes, and making sure people are physically sitting in a building.

The irony is that the people making these decisions are often the same people wondering why morale is collapsing, why experienced employees are leaving, and why younger talent isn’t interested in coming here.

Employees adapted, the workforce adapted, the job market adapted, but this leadership didn’t.

The future of work is flexibility. Every major survey and labor trend points in that direction. Younger companies and younger leaders are embracing hybrid work while companies clinging to rigid mandates are increasingly fighting yesterday’s battle.

AT&T’s leadership continues to act like forcing people into an office five days a week is some competitive advantage. It isn’t, It’s a recruiting and retention disadvantage and a morale disaster

And the longer leadership refuses to acknowledge that reality, the further behind the company falls.

You can force people into a building but you can’t force talented people and the people you want, to stay.

I've been here long enough to remember the old days. When someone with real knowledge gave notice, management would scramble, make a counteroffer, promise to make necessary changes. They'd do whatever it took to keep them.

That doesn't happen anymore. I can't recall the last time someone stayed because they got a better deal from us. People give notice and management just says okay, good luck. That's not smart at all, in my opinion. It'll cost us in the end.

July is for sales only, I've heard around 20-30 layoffs

Company retaining most of it's talent , and growing

I have a fairly uncommon skillset, and I'm worried they might block me from leaving. If they do, I guess I could ask for a raise, but that would probably just get me laid off anyway LOL.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZnNlmlOeKo/

The company took immediate steps to retain other top executives. Suryadevara was promoted to president on Monday, according to an analyst report from TD Cowen. A Fiserv spokesperson declined to comment on that information.

Also, Chief Financial Officer Paul Todd received a stock grant equal to $5 million, according to the SEC filing, amounting to a measure designed to retain him.

https://www.paymentsdive.com/news/fiservs-new-ceo-retains-team/823029/?utm_campaign=Yahoo-Licensed-Content&utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral

I'm not happy here. But I also know my friends at other companies have it worse. So I'm staying for now. But I'm curious about people who are ready to leave. What would it take? What would be the final straw that makes you quit?

People are leaving for competitors every single week. And the company isn't offering them better pay or any incentive to stay. Not even a conversation. With others being kicked out through layoffs, where does leadership think that will leave us in a few years?

CRM here. We are overwhelmed. Supporting 70 plans is way too much. My friend at Voya who is in a similar role has 36 plans. Plus, they have a CRM assistant. We have nothing like that & need it. No wonder the company can't retain clients. Many of us are fed up. Our leadership is out of touch & checked out. Leaders only pay lip service to our needs.

A friend of mine who is a corporate attorney has been inside a few companies like NM. He put it in pretty plain terms, As a US only wealth management and life insurance company their entire revenue base and regulatory footprint sits inside American expectations yet a big chunk of the actual work, both onshore and offshore, runs through large numbers of foreign nationals brought in on visas, heavily skewed toward younger men from developing jurisdictions and emerging market talent pools. In a smaller city that concentration is obvious to everyone. People see who is filling the professional roles while the local white collar market tightens. It reads as a deliberate choice to source outside the domestic pipeline rather than supplement it.
The offshore “body shop” vendors follow the standard high volume model. They pull from regions that still carry documented issues around worker leverage and labor standards (aka these countries literally allow slavery). That keeps the cost structure attractive on paper, but it also imports the downstream exposures around consistency, knowledge continuity, and supply-chain scrutiny. When the client only serves US customers, the optics of routing core functions through those channels start to look like a mismatch.
Trust is the real product they sell. Customers hand over retirement assets and life insurance details expecting the institution to operate inside familiar norms around data handling and professional conduct. Large inflows from jurisdictions with different baseline assumptions on gender dynamics and workplace hierarchy create friction inside the building. Multiple women in affected teams have described patterns of interaction that feel off from standard US professional boundaries. It is not every individual, but the volume makes it recurring. From a culture standpoint it is material but more importantly a risk exposure standpoint it is something that needs documentation and consistent handling rather than being treated as background noise.
Data security sits on the same fault line. These are sensitive financial and personal records. Jurisdictions in parts of the emerging markets do not run the same privacy or enforcement frameworks the US requires. Concentration in a narrow set of sourcing channels turns any incident into a bigger governance and reputational event. Cognizant, one of the larger global services firms with heavy reliance on similar delivery models already flagged negative perceptions around outsourcing to developing regions in its recent 10k regulatory filings, including concerns over domestic job effects and data stewardship. That is not theoretical anymore. It is showing up in formal risk disclosures.
Visa structure adds another layer. People whose continued presence depends on employment have limited room to raise issues in control or compliance functions. That dynamic has shown up in research on financial reporting irregularities where reliance on such workers is heavier. It is a governance concern that sits quietly until something goes wrong.
The client needs to treat this as a single set of connected risks rather than separate HR and vendor issues. Workforce composition, conduct patterns, third-party concentration, and data posture all reinforce each other. A clean diagnostic on where the actual friction lives, followed by deliberate rebalancing toward domestic talent in anything that touches customers or sensitive information, would reduce the accumulated exposure. Stronger, evenly applied conduct standards help, but they become harder to maintain when the sourcing model itself keeps introducing the same patterns at scale.
The cost advantage looks different once you factor in retention drag on female employees, customer perception risk, and the concentration that turns routine operational problems into brand events. They need to address this before one of those threads pulls loose.