How secure are corporate jobs - really

[gillboy]

My small company experience in sales that management routinely tries to weed out poor performers (bottom 10-20%) of sales people by busting b*lls or outright firing.

I've only been with a big company a few years and I'm out in the field (sales) so if I'm being compared no-one's telling me.

 

[Milton]

My small company experience in sales that management routinely tries to weed out poor performers (bottom 10-20%) of sales people by busting b*lls or outright firing.

Blake: "We're adding a little something to this month's sales contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody want to see second prize? [Holds up prize] Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired."

 

[megacorp-firee]

30 years at Megacorp
my philosophy was 'I was looking for a job when I found this one'
Had at least 4 'careers' in the 30 years
Megacorp evolved to a paternalistic 'j*b for life' environment to a quarterly job 'right-sizing' one
Went from hard to fire anyone to good performers better be 'connected' if your unit was 'targeted'
Truisms (at least from my viewpoint)
top performers (with good/current skills) with good networks could always find a job
no unit was immune from 'rightsizing'

so the moral to the story is
- keep updating your skills and stay relevant
- build your network
- be the top performer
and you should be in good shape

 

[Rustward]

Blake: "We're adding a little something to this month's sales contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody want to see second prize? [Holds up prize] Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired."

That is management by fear, and although I have never been in sales, I have seen it in action. The practice is deplorable. It communicates to the good performers just how badly they may be treated if they hit a rough spot.

 

[Milton]

Blake: "Put. That. Coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only."

 

[gillboy]

megacorp -firee - what developed in your megacorp to transform it from paternalistic to no job security? -in what period of time and in what industry?

 

[barbarus]

The best way to stay empl*yed after 50 is to work cheap. Frequently the old f@rts are the priciest w*rkers.

The greed and desperation at businesses hasn't half begun.

It's interesting to see the vultures that prey on the permanently laid-off. Such former w*rkers frequently appear like poll-axed steers, terribly embarrassed and frightened they have terminally fallen from grace. (Most have.)
All sorts of financial scams, such as franchises, have been created to separate them from their savings and restore their former glory. Sadly, these schemes usually drag them into the pit.

The situation would make for a good book.

 

[megacorp-firee]

megacorp -firee - what developed in your megacorp to transform it from paternalistic to no job security? -in what period of time and in what industry?

Went from Big fish in small pond (no competition, HUGE margins) to Big fish in Big pond (lottsa competition and lower margins). Slow to respond to marketplace due to megacorp bureacracy. Went from 'couldn't fire anyone unless you caught them with hand in the cash register or bending a colleague over the desk to 'rightsizing' and quarterly repeats across the different divisions.
1977 to 2007. 1990's was the start of it all and have seen no let-up.
computer/software development/manufacture, sales & service, ... added consulting services in the 90's.

 

[Alan]

What are your experiences in large corporations?

In the past few years I know many over 50 colleagues who have lost their jobs with my Megacorp. Most went looking for new jobs and were really pi**ed at being laid off.

 

[Craig]

Perhaps some large companies have enough bureaucracy to create more "security" ... but this is less and less common, in my experience. The sluggish, larger companies can't afford such luxuries as they compete in the market.

Whether you call them layoffs or firings, it matters relatively little. When one is in their 50's and not FIRED already, the risks are great in our current world. Tough situation.

Indeed ... save, save, save, and pray you don't suffer any financial setbacks at the wrong stage of life. They can be nearly fatal.

 

[statsman]

Whether you call them layoffs or firings, it matters relatively little. When one is in their 50's and not FIRED already, the risks are great in our current world. Tough situation.

Indeed ... save, save, save, and pray you don't suffer any financial setbacks at the wrong stage of life. They can be nearly fatal.

That's my worry now that I've reached 49. I've seen numerous layoffs in our company the past 6 months, albeit much less the last couple. If I get laid off before I turn 53, I lose a lot. I lose all employer contributions to retiree medical (50% of premiums paid at 53, 60% at 55 when I plan to FIRE). I would also end up with a significantly reduced non-COLA pension.

With the high cost of living and housing here in the Bay Area and a high school freshman still 3 years away from college, I have my fingers crossed for the next 3 years, 9 months, and 27 days. Not that I'm counting ...

 

[chinaco]

Depends on the company and industry.

I feel secure in my job... but one never knows.

 

[Delawaredave5]

The real source of "security" is your "savings and skills"

I was talking to a guy that owns a car dealership - he said the courts have really "swung full tilt" to the employer in firing lawsuits.

Years ago he used to need to be very careful, methodical and fully document the process of firing someone - in fear of some successful wrongful discharge lawsuit.

Now a days, he says it is "simply screaming you're outta here".......

As the unemployment rises, there's only going to be more power in the employer.

Repeat out loud: LBYM LBYM LBYM

 

[Midpack]

No question being with the same company for life is less likely today, and getting less likely all the time. However, I have been (fortunately) with the same company for my entire 31 year career, so it still happens.

Companies don't have the choice to offer lifetime employment in today's global economy, and it's not going to get any easier. There are exceptions but for the most part it's not a question of companies becoming greedier and/or less loyal to employees, it's just not an viable option for most companies anymore. Not surprisingly, employees are less loyal to companies these days as well. And not surprisingly, it's wise for employees to keep their skills, resumes, connections up to date at all times. Welcome to the global economy, no way to avoid it...

 

[Milton]

It's interesting to see the vultures that prey on the permanently laid-off. Such former w*rkers frequently appear like poll-axed steers, terribly embarrassed and frightened they have terminally fallen from grace. (Most have.)

All sorts of financial scams, such as franchises, have been created to separate them from their savings and restore their former glory. Sadly, these schemes usually drag them into the pit.

The situation would make for a good book.

A book on the topic has indeed been published (although I don't claim that it is particularly good): Barbara Ehrenreich's Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream (2005).

 

[pureaboly]

What are your experiences in large corporations?

Barring a contract that says otherwise, you're only valuable to a company to the extent that you make a bottom line contribution, whether by making or doing something, preventing losses, improving efficiency, or otherwise.

Whether you are making money for your company is not something you have a lot of control over, or even insight into at a big company. Someone else's mistakes, improvements, or calculations at a far off part of the company could mean that it's more profitable to dismiss you than retain you. Large companies typically have large bank accounts and access to lines of credit that allow them to absorb small and medium size fluctuations, and they're not infrequently run poorly on the inside, together meaning it can take a while for reaching the criteria for dismissal to result in losing your job.

At a smaller company you tend to have a closer relationship to the people making those choices, and you often have a better sense of the business as a whole so that you can make a better guestimate of your contribution to the bottom line. But on the other hand small companies tend to have smaller accounts, typically don't have much access to credit. Small companies also don't have many of the regulatory and reporting requirements of larger companies. Many of them don't have effective leadership or any internal controls.

All in all it's a relative comparison. You can read the writing on the wall in a small company clearer, but at a larger company if you're keen on reading 10-Q reports and reading between the lines of internal communications you can often see changes further in advance. Neither provides any guarantees -- that's what contracts are for.

 

[Delawaredave5]

It's interesting to see the vultures that prey on the permanently laid-off. Such former w*rkers frequently appear like poll-axed steers, terribly embarrassed and frightened they have terminally fallen from grace. (Most have.)

All sorts of financial scams, such as franchises, have been created to separate them from their savings and restore their former glory. Sadly, these schemes usually drag them into the pit.

I can't believe the advertisement "cr*p" on TV today -from "make millions from the internet" to stupid vacuum cleaners and magical vitamins.

Either
1. I'm getting older and more cynical, or
2. There's a lot more cr*p out there than before.

I think it is #2 above - either because:
A. There's a lot more gullible idiots out there to buy these scams, and/or
B. Media time is a lot cheaper when there's 200 channels

I think both A and B are true.

 

[BunsGettingFirm]

I can't believe the advertisement "cr*p" on TV today -from "make millions from the internet" to stupid vacuum cleaners and magical vitamins.

Either
1. I'm getting older and more cynical, or
2. There's a lot more cr*p out there than before.

I think it is #2 above - either because:
A. There's a lot more gullible idiots out there to buy these scams, and/or
B. Media time is a lot cheaper when there's 200 channels

I think both A and B are true.

Crap franchises are a dime a dozen, and they aren't anything new. In the early '80s and late '80s, California had a run of franchise scams.

 

[Milton]

I don't remember all those "professional (sic) life coaches" being around 10 years ago. Probably because, as Delewaredave5 suggests, "There's (now) a lot more gullible idiots out there to buy these scams".

 

[Finance Dave]

There is very little security anywhere these days.

I respectfully disagree. I think the security today comes from ME. It's based on my work ethic, my ability to add value to the company, my desire to learn (in the past 15 years I've obtained an engineering degree, an MBA, a CMA (certified management accountant), and become Six Sigma certified.), and so on. Given the relatively low unemployment rate today of around 4.5%, companies really want to keep their good workers, so they are relatively secure.

There are always exceptions, such as when the general economy goes into recession or downturn and you are in a "volume-dependent" position...then sometimes companies must let people go.

I work for a large company with 35,000 employees. We have "forced ranking". Each employee is evaluated on a scale and "ranked" against his/her peers. The goal is to put 10% of the employees into a "top tier", those are the ones who get the large raises and promotions. Then they put 80% into a "middle tier", and those folks get raises about equal to cost of living, and still get promotions, but on a more "spread out" time table based on their abilities/desires. Then they put 10% in a "bottom tier". Those 10% are put on "work improvement" plans, and they must meet with their managers quarterly to discuss. If you are rated in this bottom tier two years in a row, then the company MIGHT let you go if they need to reduce staff headcounts.

Although there are things I hate about this system (It causes rivalry between peers), the one good thing is that being fired for performance (as opposed to being fired for doing something illegal) is never a surprise...you know at least a year in advance that you are "at risk", and you have the opportunity to improve.

I've worked for my company for 20 years, and I've never once said "Gee, that guy was a great employee and they fired him". More likely I've said things like "I'm glad they got rid of him, he was lazy and always trying to push work onto others, never fixed any problems, and didn't have any initiative."

Dave

 

[Lsbcal]

I respectfully disagree. I think the security today comes from ME. It's based on my work ethic, my ability to add value to the company, my desire to learn (in the past 15 years I've obtained an engineering degree, an MBA, a CMA (certified management accountant), and become Six Sigma certified.), and so on.

For yourself this is definitely a good attitude in order to keep competitive in the marketplace. You will probably be among the last to be layed off if times get very rough.

I've worked for my company for 20 years, and I've never once said "Gee, that guy was a great employee and they fired him". More likely I've said things like "I'm glad they got rid of him, he was lazy and always trying to push work onto others, never fixed any problems, and didn't have any initiative."

Typical hard ass attitude and makes me angry . I don't usually see red when reading a post. Well there might be a few sloths in the workplace but all in all people want to perform given a chance. You've just worked in your company for the right 20 years. I worked for a large company for 30 years and during the dot-com bust they layed off around 50% of the people. We had a ranking system too. That didn't stop them from laying off very high ranking people who were in the wrong units at the wrong time. I hope you're not the type of guy who sees their layed off collegues outside of work and looks the other way. You need to develop some compassion.

 

[kcowan]

I hope you're not the type of guy who sees their layed off collegues outside of work and looks the other way. You need to develop some compassion.

I did my share of corporate 'cleansing' and I would say that very few of the people let go were incapable of good work. Most were just caught in the wrong job. Most also used the transition to get into the right job. So everybody won.

(There were, however 2 suicides... but not from my list.)

 

[Lsbcal]

I guess everybody can win -- but let's not kid ourselves. Personally a layoff can be extremely traumatic and your mention of suicides just shows that. I did OK with my layoff as I just decided to ER and got the severance package too. But there were some older guys who did not have that luxury. They were clearly crushed. Hopefully they found equivalent or superior positions but nobody I know would want such a "win-win" experience.

 

[BunsGettingFirm]

I respectfully disagree. I think the security today comes from ME. It's based on my work ethic, my ability to add value to the company, my desire to learn (in the past 15 years I've obtained an engineering degree, an MBA, a CMA (certified management accountant), and become Six Sigma certified.), and so on. Given the relatively low unemployment rate today of around 4.5%, companies really want to keep their good workers, so they are relatively secure.

There are always exceptions, such as when the general economy goes into recession or downturn and you are in a "volume-dependent" position...then sometimes companies must let people go.

I work for a large company with 35,000 employees. We have "forced ranking". Each employee is evaluated on a scale and "ranked" against his/her peers. The goal is to put 10% of the employees into a "top tier", those are the ones who get the large raises and promotions. Then they put 80% into a "middle tier", and those folks get raises about equal to cost of living, and still get promotions, but on a more "spread out" time table based on their abilities/desires. Then they put 10% in a "bottom tier". Those 10% are put on "work improvement" plans, and they must meet with their managers quarterly to discuss. If you are rated in this bottom tier two years in a row, then the company MIGHT let you go if they need to reduce staff headcounts.

Although there are things I hate about this system (It causes rivalry between peers), the one good thing is that being fired for performance (as opposed to being fired for doing something illegal) is never a surprise...you know at least a year in advance that you are "at risk", and you have the opportunity to improve.

I've worked for my company for 20 years, and I've never once said "Gee, that guy was a great employee and they fired him". More likely I've said things like "I'm glad they got rid of him, he was lazy and always trying to push work onto others, never fixed any problems, and didn't have any initiative."

Dave

Dave, I think you'll find that this board is filled with people with graduate degrees and professional certifications of the highest difficulty. Even so, most of us have seen enough to know that competency is necessary but not sufficient to ensure continued employment.

You may be right in that there is some rhyme and reason to who gets fired. That may actually be a good thing because it shows that the universe does have some rules. However, I have seen plenty of FOBs (friends of the boss) do little, strut around, create unnecessary and counterproductive chaos, and still remain employed. Trust me, no matter how good you are or how many black belts you have (in Six Sigma or in one of the martial arts), you cross one of the FOBs even if unintentionally, you're done.

 

[Alan]

Dave, I think you'll find that this board is filled with people with graduate degrees and professional certifications of the highest difficulty. Even so, most of us have seen enough to know that competency is necessary but not sufficient to ensure continued employment.

You may be right in that there is some rhyme and reason to who gets fired. That may actually be a good thing because it shows that the universe does have some rules. However, I have seen plenty of FOBs (friends of the boss) do little, strut around, create unnecessary and counterproductive chaos, and still remain employed. Trust me, no matter how good you are or how many black belts you have (in Six Sigma or in one of the martial arts), you cross one of the FOBs even if unintentionally, you're done.

I fully agree. I've been with the same large company 29 years, been a senior managerfor the last 18 years and seen many good, very competant, folks get laid off or fired because on incompetent managers who happen to be FOBs. I always took jobs at manufacturing sites where jobs tended to be more secure for competent folks. 4 years ago I was asked to move to Corporate in Houston during yet another company restructing by a Director in England that I had know for years and repected highly. I was very successful in everything they gave me to do - establishing 3 global teams of managers, and working on mergers and aquisitions. However, in the new organization, my Director's face and management style did not fit so only lasted 14 months. Another local Director who I worked closely with and quickly got to respect and rely on for advice lasted only 8 months. They brought in a new Director and I worked for him for 14 months - he was really excellent and extremely effective. However his face didn't fit either and he got laid off last summer. That's when I decided I wanted out of that environment.

As I say I have tons of all the experience the company wants plus I don't have a political bone in my body so there were plenty of offers. I chose a job back at the company's largest site where I'd spent 15 years. The great reception I've received has been almost over whelming. (still can't wait to RE of course )