Would You Delay ER on a Rumor?

[Katsmeow]

I would probably wait around for a while to see if something was offered. Maybe as long as a year but probably not beyond that.

[chris2008]

Some months: yes
more than a year: no
;-) DH could write an undated letter of resignation and hand it out to DW with the understanding that she could add the date and send it to employer if she feels that his mood develops into the negative during the waiting period. ;-)

[obgyn65]

Same here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katsmeow I would probably wait around for a while to see if something was offered. Maybe as long as a year but probably not beyond that.

[misty57]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris2008 Some months: yes more than a year: no ;-) DH could write an undated letter of resignation and hand it out to DW with the understanding that she could add the date and send it to employer if she feels that his mood develops into the negative during the waiting period. ;-)

Trust me, he knows when his work is getting the better of him. The company that he works for "talks" a big game when it comes to work/life balance, but that's all it is....talk. He strives to have it despite them.

I don't think he'd wait another full year unless the package had been announced, but implementation delayed.

[Texas Proud]

I am like a lot of the others.... I would stay around to see what comes out... even if nothing official comes, in a few months the rumors would probably get closer to the truth...

Quote:

Trust me, he knows when his work is getting the better of him. The company that he works for "talks" a big game when it comes to work/life balance, but that's all it is....talk. He strives to have it despite them.

I do not understand this... since he is ready to retire, he can do a lot of things that someone who wants to keep a job cannot... he can go home at a normal hour, not work overtime etc etc.... what is the worst they can do fire him? Not likely, at least quickly, in a large organization.. and he can make sure that he is in the front of the line for the package if it is announced....

[brett]

Absolutely. He has nothing to loose and everything to gain. If he works his usual hours, no OT or bringing work home etc. the worst that will happen is that they may consider him 'top of the list' material when it comes to layoffs. Even the odd few sick days.

[misty57]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud I am like a lot of the others.... I would stay around to see what comes out... even if nothing official comes, in a few months the rumors would probably get closer to the truth... I do not understand this... since he is ready to retire, he can do a lot of things that someone who wants to keep a job cannot... he can go home at a normal hour, not work overtime etc etc.... what is the worst they can do fire him? Not likely, at least quickly, in a large organization.. and he can make sure that he is in the front of the line for the package if it is announced....

He is in middle management. If the VP says, "Jump!", he's supposed to ask, "How high?". In spite of all their talk about work/life balance, when they want something they expect you to put in the extra hours to get it done. That's what I mean when I say that he attempts to implement a work/life balance in his life despite the company.

Thank goodness that our goal 30 years ago was for early retirement to be an option. There are many, many people, older than my husband, who are retirement eligible and would love to get out (which are the exact people who they want to get rid of - those who have been around for years and are a bit higher up on the pay scale), but too many employees at his level cannot quite yet afford it - hence a package to give them a little extra incentive.

[rayvt]

When I decided to RE, I went to my boss and told him, "I know that you can't say whether or not a layoff is coming, even if you know it. But it smells like it to me. So if there is, I want to volunteer for the layoff package."

Then I went back to my desk and worked on the fun stuff and set aside the not-fun work. Figured that even if he wanted to fire me for slacking off, he'd rather keep me in his back pocket as a sacrifice so as to be able to keep someone that he'd prefer not to have to lay off, when the axe came.

Worst case for me would be no worse than just flat-out retiring.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by misty57 He is in middle management. If the VP says, "Jump!", he's supposed to ask, "How high?". In spite of all their talk about work/life balance, when they want something they expect you to put in the extra hours to get it done. That's what I mean when I say that he attempts to implement a work/life balance in his life despite the company. Thank goodness that our goal 30 years ago was for early retirement to be an option. There are many, many people, older than my husband, who are retirement eligible and would love to get out (which are the exact people who they want to get rid of - those who have been around for years and are a bit higher up on the pay scale), but too many employees at his level cannot quite yet afford it - hence a package to give them a little extra incentive.

See rayvt's post.... that is what I am talking about...

Yes, he is expected to say how high, but what if he doesn't? It is not like they are going to fire him the first time he says "I don't think I will jump right now"... and since he is ready to retire, the only downside is that some people might think less of him after he is gone.... who cares about that?

It is he who is putting the pressure on himself... and yes, I can understand work ethics comes into play... but, if they are taking advantage of you, then you are the only one who can stop it...

[rayvt]

To follow up (since I think it makes for an interesting story), it turned out that there were 2 of us in that situation -- although we were in different groups but both worked for the same manager. She was a group leader and I was a programmer.

I told him in April. In late May the head honcho in HR called me in to verify that my manager's story about me volunterring was accurate. It was. Cautioned me to not say anything to others. He denied any knowledge of an upcoming layoff, just said, "Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Even if it is/is-not, that can change."
Meanwhile, my tasks were winding down and they didn't assign me to any long-term tasks, only short-term ones.
For Louise, it was interesting. They slowly moved the people under her to other group leaders, until she was a leader with no direct reports. Pretty obvious in her case that something's going on!

It wasn't until late August that the layoffs came. The announcement came one morning -- all the managers read the same letter to their people at the same time. Next morning the group leaders came around one-by-one and brought people to the HR conference rooms where they got the personal news.
I was one of the few that was grinning ear-to-ear and urging the HR guy to stop apologizing about laying me off and to hurry up and get to the good stuff -- the golden handshake package.

Everybody's last day of work was the Friday before Labor Day holiday. You don't get holiday pay unless you are on the payroll the day BEFORE and the day AFTER. So they screwed us out of one day's pay.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by misty57 The company that he works for "talks" a big game when it comes to work/life balance, but that's all it is....talk. He strives to have it despite them.

The new corporate buzzword is "work-life *blending*". Balance implies that we have a life separated from our work, and employers increasingly can't accept that. Hence the trend is to brainwash "educate" employees on how to cope with an emerging reality where they are basically "at work" 24/7 in the form of being on call at all times. Because, of course, business couldn't survive if something didn't get done until the morning, or until Monday.

[Independent]

Both of these:

Quote:

Originally Posted by misty57 As much as he's ready to pull the plug, I think knowing that he can do it at any time is probably key.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steelyman For what it's worth, I think it's a decision of who is calling the shots. When you are working, you're dancing to the employer's call, but when you (really) decide to retire, you're in the driver's seat. I chose the latter.

What's the cost of waiting? If he really hates the job, that cost is high. If the job isn't too bad, it's not a big deal.

I discovered that when I was convinced I could walk out any day that things got too annoying, the job became much easier. I could do what I was good at and ignore the politics and posturing around me. In some ways, the last six months at work were the best in my last 5 years.

But, part of "being convinced I could walk out any day" was knowing that my wife would support me either way.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent I discovered that when I was convinced I could walk out any day that things got too annoying, the job became much easier. I could do what I was good at and ignore the politics and posturing around me. In some ways, the last six months at work were the best in my last 5 years.

This was exactly my dad's experience when he turned 55, became eligible for his pension and reached the point of FI. Suddenly work wasn't so bad -- not only because of his less toxic mindset about it, but also because his bosses shielded him from the usual crap because they didn't want him to retire!

I also find that the more of a financial cushion we have and the closer we get to FI, the less I give a damn about the corporate garbage that used to stress me out. Worst case, they lay me off when I stop saying "how high" to their demands to jump. That's not nearly as scary to me now as it was 5-10 years ago. I just have to make sure I don't give them "cause" so I'm eligible for severance packages and COBRA.

[Milton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hud3 Tough decision, but what's the downside of a "wait and see" strategy?

Our individual lifespans, and periods of good health, are finite (and, generally speaking, unknown to us). There is an opportunity cost to remaining on the job for an extra period, especially if the time spent at work is preventing the o/p's husband from doing something else he wants to do (e.g., travel, hobbies, socializing with friends or family, volunteering, etc.), or if related stress is contributing to health issues.

A couple of the unknown variables at play here include:

- how much of a 'buffer' will his current savings and pension provide against anticipated expenses in retirement? If there is little or no surplus, it might well make sense to continue working for two or three extra months, in the hope of receiving a nice top-up. Conversely, if he already has more than enough, I don't really see the point in hanging on ... that would be letting the irrational (greed) triumph over the rational;

- as Independent asks, does he really, really hate his job, or is he just modestly tired/frustrated/bored?

[misty57]

We got some hard news today. An announcement of a package will most likely come out in September or October. The implementation would probably not take place for at least 60 days in compliance with the WARN Act. Speculation on my part is that because the WARN could take people into the holiday season, they probably would delay implementation until the end of Jan of next year. This is all dependent on what happens in Washington over the next three months.

We still don't know exactly what will be offered; but at a minimum, getting severance would be sweet.

DH does not hate his job, but he is dealing with a third change in the concept of operations in six years. That is why he feels as though he has been on a treadmill....because in essence, he has. Work, work, work to implement a new concept of operations only to have executive management decide to change it AGAIN!! It has been EXTREMELY frustrating.

[chris2008]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent I discovered that when I was convinced I could walk out any day that things got too annoying, the job became much easier. I could do what I was good at and ignore the politics and posturing around me. In some ways, the last six months at work were the best in my last 5 years. But, part of "being convinced I could walk out any day" was knowing that my wife would support me either way.

I am somehow in a similar situation. We had planned to ER in 7/12. DH postponed to 7/2013 for some reasons I can understand. So I postponed as well. At my employer there are rumors floating around on a merger that will also have impact on my (quite agreeable) job. I make sure that I do a good job but I can patiently relax and wait.
If something is offered before 7/13 I will negotiate a bit and take it.
If nothing is offered I will follow up on our plans.
If something is offered that requires me to stay some months longer, I might consider - or not. Probably not.

[misty57]

His original plan was that he would put his paperwork in this month and give a 90-day notice which would have put his retirement in September. If yesterday's announcement to the media doesn't pan out, he can submit his paperwork in October and choose to give them a minimum 30-day notice.

There are a couple people he knows at work who were planning to put their paperwork in shortly too; but have also decided to wait, so he'll be commiserating with them over the summer.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by misty57 We got some hard news today. An announcement of a package will most likely come out in September or October. The implementation would probably not take place for at least 60 days in compliance with the WARN Act. Speculation on my part is that because the WARN could take people into the holiday season, they probably would delay implementation until the end of Jan of next year. This is all dependent on what happens in Washington over the next three months. We still don't know exactly what will be offered; but at a minimum, getting severance would be sweet. DH does not hate his job, but he is dealing with a third change in the concept of operations in six years. That is why he feels as though he has been on a treadmill....because in essence, he has. Work, work, work to implement a new concept of operations only to have executive management decide to change it AGAIN!! It has been EXTREMELY frustrating.

Your thinking is probably wrong on timing... Most companies who want to get rid of people want to get the accounting done in the year they announce... so they need to be able to specify the exact people leaving and when they are going to leave.... they can then accrue for all the costs and show 'savings' the following year... even if the person does stay longer...

[misty57]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Your thinking is probably wrong on timing... Most companies who want to get rid of people want to get the accounting done in the year they announce... so they need to be able to specify the exact people leaving and when they are going to leave.... they can then accrue for all the costs and show 'savings' the following year... even if the person does stay longer...

That may very well be the case.

In 2009, they offered packages to the directors and VPs in September and did not have them retire until the end of January the following year. In addition, the company must have some unwritten policy about avoiding layoffs during the holidays, but there's always a first time.

[brett]

Going into the next fiscal period will not matter.

Once the company has anounced the program they will do an expense accrual to cover all costs of the re-org...people, real estate, etc.

What often happens is that when they do release less than stellar financial results, quarterly or yearly, they choose to announce a staff reduction as a way of responding to the results.

They take the expense accrual up front-along with any other not so good financial news for that period. It gives them a clearer shot to show quarterly improvement next time around.