And they say we don't have ageism in the industry... :
"As with prior layoffs, or "resource actions" to use IBM's euphemism, we're told those affected are substantially in the 50-55 age bracket with 20-24 years of seniority.
"It seems exclusively people in L7 and L8 and L9 bands, at the top of the band in payment structure," the insider said.""
I've always thought the term "resource" was dehumanizing, but at least on its own it could be interpreted positively, but "resource actions" is just upsetting
RA’ing people at the top of their band means that they’ve topped out skill-wise. These aren’t senior people; it’s people who will never get promoted past 7 or 8 (which are quite junior) but have been accruing comp adjustments for a long time. Most teams will lay off a 7 that is getting paid more than a 9 by virtue of being at the company for 20 years.
Maybe this is true skill-wise, but there is also productivity to consider. I knew a band 9, who was definitely not going to be promoted STSM (band 10), but was extremely productive. I'm sure he was paid well, better than most band 10s.
Band 10 and above include good soft-skills, people who can persuade the industry and organization, give TED talks, etc.
I never saw any significant compensation increase by staying in the company at the same level. A long tenure at level 7 will have a very stagnant compensation and much lower than a newly hired level 7 and lower than 9.
If the goal is to save money, isn’t it reasonable to axe the most senior people which are probably also paid more than junior ones? And I’m not saying it’s a smart strategy, it’s probably idiotic. Just saying it’s not really ageist.
The cost/productivity balance is supposed to have been considered for hiring and promotion; when a layoff predominately targets a specific division or pay level it means the strategy leading up to that point had been wrong.
Have another thoughts re-reading your comment this morning.
> when a layoff predominately targets a specific division or pay level it means the strategy leading up to that point had been wrong.
This is fair but isn’t also this what we want? Like if you run a company, if you realize that mistakes were made, isn’t it reasonable to expect a correction? And by “what we want” I mean the admitting a mistake and correcting it.
It means that there's not a "most natural" level for layoffs, because the center line that layoffs indicate deviation from has all the pay levels in balance. Reducing staff at high pay levels doesn't a priori make the best trade.
Oh I’m not arguing against that. And as I said, I don’t think it’s a smart way of running things. I’m just saying that it may not be an age thing but simply a money thing. That’s all.
I’ll say this again because people are downvoting as if I’m trying to defend this practice: I think it’s stupid.
Now, what I’m pushing against is this idea that it is “ageist”. I’m no native speaker but ageist is defined as
> a bias against individuals and groups based on their age
Now if I decide to fire everyone who’s making more than 500k at a company and it just so happens that those people are all above a certain age I don’t think that’s ageist. It’s certainly stupid and I think I made it clear. It’s a money driven decision, which is also stupid.
I just think it’s important of accuse people of the right thing if you want to accuse them of something. That’s all I’m saying.
But again, the fuck do I know. I don’t work in corporate, don’t play the stupid ladder game, will never get a promotion. I’m just here sharing a random thought on the bizarre business world you people live in.
Oh I’m sure they’ll end up hiring again. And I’m also sure C-suite comps won’t go down. I just don’t think it’s a crusade against old people. It’s just that old people have more experience and demand higher pay. But I mean, if one wants to argue that it’s ageist to fire them then I can make the same stupid argument that it’s ageist for them to be paid more than younger people.
And it’s clearly a stupid argument because there are other factors and not just age.
If younger people in the same position were paid less, yes, that would be ageist. Nobody's arguing against that.
But, as you said, C-suite comps won't go down. Neither do VP comps. But the people rehired, oddly, are all younger. And that is ageist.
Not if they axe the position. Neither if it's in a single instance. But if, at scale, older people are fired, younger people are rehired, and comp doesn't change significantly - yeah, sorry, that's ageist.
There's a reason many companies instead offer folks a juicy "if you leave, have a chunk of money" package - they do want younger people for one reason or another (and I don't think it's fundamentally wrong to want a change) and this a way to do this in a way that does not discriminate.
IBM's leaning hard into being an asshole instead. There's a reason they've had reams of discrimination lawsuits. Significantly more than comparable companies. Let's not make excuses for them, they have lawyers for that.
> But the people rehired, oddly, are all younger. And that is ageist.
Is it though? Or is it just that younger people are just cheaper to hire? It’s the same reasoning in reverse. Older people with more experience demand a higher pay. And if you’re motivated—again, wrongly—just by money you probably will end up hiring younger. Because it’s cheaper.
And again, I think it’s dumb. Just not ageist. It’s probably greed which is not uncommon in the business world.
Again, as I said in my message: Pay for position stays the same, independent of age. Firing is disproportionately old people who get replaced with young people at the same pay
Does pay stay the same? Genuinely asking. Like is someone with 15 years of experience not getting paid more than someone with 1, even if hired for the same position? And we can obviously argue how that’s even possible but that’s a separate issue altogether.
Ok. Asian Americans are consistently over represented in US higher education, especially in math-heavy fields. What discriminatory practices by these institutions are causing this?
So how does this work? Asian Americans are vastly over represented relative to their population in higher education. This "implies" they've been receiving special treatment or favoritism?
Pretty much; might or might not; "suggest" may be a better word. It means there may be something to check into.
What OTHER advantages, disadvantages, preparation levels, etc. are working for and/or against that group?
Can those factors account for the differential?
What is the groups' actual relative performance in the situation (i.e., do they tend to perform at|above|below the level to which they have risen, e.g., legacy college admissions with "Gentleman's Cs" are performing below)?
And so forth.
The point is that statistical disparities are not conclusive, but are most often indicative of some kind of structural favoritism, like smoke to fire. Not always, and you can always cherry-pick some counter-example, but the default assumption is that it merits investigation.
FWIW, I didn't flag you. Just wanted to say you're accusing me of a straw man, but when I give a particular example that is a concrete example within a general statement, that's not a straw man.
Between the two of us, I am looking at a well-researched and widely understood example of why a disparate outcome doesn't actually imply what we would intuitively think, while you are talking about metaphors of smoke and "taking closer looks" as if those justify angrily jumping to conclusions.
If you have some sort of correlation coefficient to justify jumping to conclusions even mildly, I'd appreciate that contribution. But "something isn't equal" isn't even necessarily reason to look into something further, let alone a reason to presume the cause. Nothing is ever equal. Equality is a fictional concept, and doing deep dives into every example of it would exhaust our collective resources.
IDK what's the story, My comment is non-displaying and it looks like yours is flagged.
In any case, none of this conversation is at the level of a dissertation, neither enough time or space.
The start was a seven-word comment with a tone I read that was entirely dismissive of even the concept that IBM could be practicing ageism.
It cannot be dismissed so easily (and I have family working there trying to evade exactly those ageist axes to get to retirement with full benefits).
The point of the smoke/fire is that a single good counter-example of disparate results likely not implying discrimination does not disprove all examples. The fact remains, such statistics remain a good starting point.
You have many words, but beyond the first general wave of the hands that statistics do not imply discrimination and one non-correlating example, I've missed where you provided any info or evidence to show IBM is not practicing ageism, in particular to effectively cut pensions.
Since IBM are clearly managing the workforce for profit, the multiplier of cutting older people is far larger; you save not only a few years of higher salaries, but also up to decades of zeroed or reduced pensions. Pretty strong financial incentive.
I think you're right that IBM is considering in particular the most effective cost savings strategy. And it happens that older people are more effective in cost reduction. But that's not ageism.
"As with prior layoffs, or "resource actions" to use IBM's euphemism, we're told those affected are substantially in the 50-55 age bracket with 20-24 years of seniority.
"It seems exclusively people in L7 and L8 and L9 bands, at the top of the band in payment structure," the insider said.""