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)
@az 46 and disableed
@e2 makes no sense!! were they remote? From a product being sunset?
@ba
Absolutely was not random. Many companies are now looking at AI adoption rates when deciding who to cut. They look at copilot usage, internal AI tool usage, etc, and gain insight from leaders on who is seen as having high change adaptability and least likely to push back against 2030 messaging. That doesn’t mean it was the direct reason you were cut, and i’m sure plenty of high adopters were cut, but it’s extremely naïve to think it was random
HR Denver- VAS/PRE/OPs or whatever organization initialization CyberSource is
PRE Director - 15 years - cut : able to say ‘As many of you may know, today is my last day’ Farewell email - US/American
Staff Site Reliability Engineer - cut : maybe a year but not the newest hire ( intern to hire kept on) , direct report was not aware or involved in the walkout - H1B/ Indian
Two of our Bangalore office counterparts - cut
US Team makeup - remaining/ currently
Team Director is H1B about to start green card authorization/ application
2 US nationals, maybe also the intern
1 naturalized team lead
~6 H1B : 5 Asian, 1 African
And I want to call out the subtle and overt racism from respondents towards all the Indian/Asian/foreigner work visa - you’re a victim of capitalism and not because of H1B
you trust smiley face saaarrr, and then this is what you get at the end. Whole lot of termites.
@gx it's not about OVN being a serious product. As employees we care much more about the system functioning than the execs above.
These leeches couldn't give a rats a-s whether the open systems are actually functioning once their term at the top is up.
Let's be real about how "random" these layoffs actually are. The pattern is pretty consistent: you're either too outspoken, you're not drinking the Kool-Aid, or someone above you just decided they don't like you. (hard stop) Once you're on that list, you're on it for good, context but relevant. High performers get cut all the time, and it's not despite being good at your job, it's because of it. Talent is threatening to people who feel shaky in their own position, especially when it's a woman leading anotger strong women, making them look replaceable. Trust me, mine was personal and I was a hi-po!
@fa let me know when OVN is integrated into a bigger market. When that happens, I'll start taking OVN seriously.
@fa OVN is a joke
@f9 well OVN is already running more and more things. Clearing systems in containers are already running in shadow modes. Once settlement is ported over as well that's already a lot off mainframes.
Of course it's going to still take time, but this is truly a case of death by a thousand cuts for anyone supporting the current mainframe systems.
@eh - "There will be another huge wave once migration is complete away from mainframes to open systems."
So 15 years and half a trillion dollars later Visa is not even close to migrating off the mainframe. If this is senior managements long term strategy Visa needs new leadership.
Visa seem to be pretty big on robust engineering metrics such as number of commits or whether you tagged GEN=yes.
Who knows if that played a factor...
Well there are already new roles like Director of Agentic Commerce posted on LinkedIn, so it seems like a lot of those who got laid off were just deemed to be surplus to keeping the existing systems running.
There will be another huge wave once migration is complete away from mainframes to open systems. Tbh I'd be looking to leave now that the writing is on the wall for how Visa is going to operate annually from here on.
cost cutting exercise, with majority of work being shifted to the sub continent.
hooray for global offices!
I know someone <~25 years old got laid off, so definitely not by age
The layoff criteria could be random or different from region to region etc
Know someone with 2 consecutive O/O laid off today.
I was at Visa for more than 7 years not counting contracting and conversion to full time. Someone brought a family friend from 'church' to interview etc etc. This particular person did not like me from day one. She waste no time and she put me on the 'machete' list. No regrets. She had no idea the amount of work I was doing behind the scenes, so bad that I wanted to leave desperately and she made it flawless :)
I was let go. 5 years employed. Promoted within last two years. O/O last year.
@ba mind share what team you are?
Have been at Visa for 3 years, was promoted last year and was still laid off. All great performance reviews and in a high growth org. This was random
What's the age and ethnicity spread on this current round, if any? Patterns in previous rounds in prior years appear to have focused on older people who were not in certain favoured ethnic groups, which is of course illegal in many jurisdictions if proven! Pure conjecture of course.
Tenure becomes much less of an issue when they are only paying out up to 6 years, so a 7-year employee costs Visa the same as a 20-year employee.
Pretty easy to tell people were handpicked. So many different levels, pay ranges, personalities, etc. to narrow it down
This doesn't match what I'm seeing. There's not a ton of consistency but it seems like expensive employees are on the chopping block (regardless of performance and tenure), especially if your department isn't valued highly by leadership. Many of the others are random lower visibility employees (somewhat agnostic to tenure and not necessarily related to performance). And in some cases management clearly has simply decided they don't want to retain a particular team or location.
Some of the selections are puzzling and it's hard to decipher the logic.
Not true, I know colleagues promoted in last 2 years were laid off.
From what me and a colleague can tell from those we know who've been let go (mind you the pool is only around 13 co-workers who were angry enough to tell us their situation) it seems to be a combination of a few different categories. Now keep in mind we don't KNOW any of this it's just conjecture and we have no idea what the formula actually is.
What we don't know is if it's all some none or if there's other criteria
We know Performance didn't play a role as we had O/S S/S and N/S folks getting cut...
Time with visa also didn't play a role we know people with less than 6 years and some with over 20 who got cut.
Keep in mind this is 13 people we know and by no means driven by data or facts.
@a3 do you know their annual review ratings for sure? People keep saying high performers but are these people getting outstanding ratings?
@a4 clearly you're lacking comprehension skills because those people with 5+ yoe fall under the first 2 categories
Sorry buddy, but they provided you bs. I'm not saying, you didn't hear this info, but it's not accurate.
Most of the people, that I know and got laid off, have +5 yoe.
Many high performers got laid off as well... will not mention where , im sorry to say there doesnt seem to be a logic to the madness. The criteria is not consistent.
This doesn’t seem right.