In Finance they declassified 15 execs to protect them from the two strike rule. Now they are competing at 28-29 level and can avoid NSI. Guess how they selected which execs were declassed? Definitely not the older ones. How is that legal?
14 replies (most recent on top)
Across the board, all work in a given CL is being pushed down at least two CL levels. By definition, the annual salary for your "new" CL responsibilities will be lower. Welcome to the 21st Century and how corporations are managing payroll and pension, which are the two highest OPEX buckets.
@c5 yes! But they always found a way to disguise ageism by using performance excuse. Removing those 15 from the exec rankings made that practice more clear than ever.
@bd How about useless HR?
@OP has not NSI always been selective?!
@a7…. Two points where you’re wrong.
Salaries remained the same, no change to take home base pay. In fact, some will compete on high end of 28/29 pool, effectively pushing others down, and take home more RSUs as an E or O in 28/29 pool than what they got on lower end of exec pool. Cash bonus will stop.
Declassification of execs does not automatically create room for 15 new execs because the roles most of those execs were in were RE classified to non-exec and the pipeline to exec is narrower. So younger folks moved to those positions in the future will NOT be paid as an exec which su-c-ks!
So we get to compete with prior execs, and our chances of becoming an exec are way dimmer. It’s all part of the process to drive us away.
do we really need anyone in Finance? We should just cut the headcount in Finance by >50% and deploy AI.
Same with IT.
There you go DWW, your headcount targets achieved.
I have zero example of anything based on merit since I’ve been here.
@a7 not really. I am not opposed to declassification as long it has clear criteria and not driven by age. This should be based on positions that are not truly exec ones. And not based on who has more time before hitting 55 death sentence.
JC doesn’t give a sh-t and neither does NH.
@ac I know someone who’s doing CL26-29 work and they’re much lower CL but got the title so it seems like an accurate observation. A really twisted and fcked up thing to do from employer side but hey, as long as job is getting done, eh?
They are not making room for new execs to move in. They are simply reducing the exec level ranks which is not a bad thing. They are also pushing down ALL the job-role CL requirements as a way to further save on salary costs which IS a bad thing for most employees.
Always build your marketable skills and be looking for other opportunities. XOM is not loyal to you so no need to be loyal to it. It’s just the way the world works.
Back scratching to help their buddies make it to 55. One rule for them and another rule for you. WAEM...
The only way to restore meritocracy is to have much more movement both in and out of exec status. Why not automatically move the bottom execs down and the top non-execs up each year? Why are we even talking about it as if it were tenure? Declassification should be a normal everyday occurrence. Bring it on.
This actually seems pretty reasonable, if true. 15 people who have performed well enough to make Executive at what sounds like younger ages were not competitive at CL30+. Believing that they still have something to contribute (and they likely do) they were bumped down to CL29, losing salary and a lucrative RSU program in the process.
They are believed to be talent worth retaining and now there are spots available for others to be promoted. The people taking the biggest hits here are those 15 employees, not you.