Once they start changing the rules about what we get when laid off, all bets are off. They’ll test the new approach, and if it’s still not to their liking (let’s be real, it never will be if they’re paying anything), they’ll just keep tweaking it (translation: cutting it). This sets a dangerous precedent, creating a slippery slope that could leave us in a terrible spot when layoffs happen down the line.
13 replies (most recent on top)
Post ID: @gp+1jj6872ga Absolutely not better for long tenured employees. Long tenured employees are sc--wed because of the lack of healthcare coverage (cobra cost will be astronomical) and the lump sum is higher taxed and no ability to collect unemployment concurrently.
It’s better for employees that have only been here a few years.
The plan has switched from sub to severance. Payout has not changed still based on elegibility except the medical insurance will only cover up to 20 weeks. This could be better for some individuals with longer tenure.
Severance starting Feb 1. 30 day notice period (whatever that means - they pay you like normal for 30 days before the severance?). Paid as lump sum. Don’t have to pay back if new job is found. 2 weeks for each year of service capped at 52 weeks. A separate medical payment calculated based on what the company would’ve contributed to healthcare capped at 20 weeks.
Email was sent out yesterday at 4pm est. They buried it in with w-2 info hoping nobody would notice.
Lump sum, but clawback if you find a job?
Was email a company distribution?
Who sent email?
Still getting 2 weeks for every year worked but as a lump sum not payments. it’s a severance not a sub pay now.
Email was received today. New policy Effective 2/1. I'd rather be laid off today instead of next month. 🙄
Was there an email sent out to describe the change?
People come on here make a vague statement and head off. Wtf
What has been said?
I'm thankful that I work in EMEA, where we have labour laws against this sort of thing.
If BNY wish to eliminate my role, they will have to pay to do so.
Have they said anything about changing their approach to what they're paying people getting laid off?