AZ, PLEASE offer self ID this time

[anonymous]

AZ HR, Please, please, offer the self identification process during this single digit reduction phase. This would be the right thing to do.

 

[anonymous]

AZ HR, Please, please, offer the self identification process during this single digit reduction phase. This would be the right thing to do.

After the last time they offered self ID (several layoffs ago), they'll never do it again--way too costly. The ones who will get a package are those who will cost them the least. Why let long-timers whose packages will cost them a bundle leave voluntarily? The objective is to make things miserable enough that they'll leave on their own. I was given the heave-ho in late '12--my colleague who had the same position, but many more years on the job was dying to self-ID--I got the package, he's still stuck at AZ, hoping and praying for the package, for all the good it'll do him.

 

[anonymous]

Actually they let people self ID in 2012.

 

[anonymous]

After the last time they offered self ID (several layoffs ago), they'll never do it again--way too costly. The ones who will get a package are those who will cost them the least. Why let long-timers whose packages will cost them a bundle leave voluntarily? The objective is to make things miserable enough that they'll leave on their own. I was given the heave-ho in late '12--my colleague who had the same position, but many more years on the job was dying to self-ID--I got the package, he's still stuck at AZ, hoping and praying for the package, for all the good it'll do him.

So if I understand this, if someone has a lower pay and less years with AZ than their territory partner, you're saying that's who would be the one to be let go? It seems to me that having to pay the extra annual salary every year is much more costly and would put the target on that reps back.

 

[anonymous]

So if I understand this, if someone has a lower pay and less years with AZ than their territory partner, you're saying that's who would be the one to be let go? It seems to me that having to pay the extra annual salary every year is much more costly and would put the target on that reps back.

No. they will set a territory and decide how many reps are needed. If they need 3 reps, and there 3 reps currently living in that territory, then those three stay. If there are 4 reps, then they look at which of those reps has called on those physicians, then if they've sold those products, then if all those factors are equal then throw a pre-calculated number into the computer and out spits the answer (such as average of last three years end of year performance rating). If it is still all equal, then they simply drop a pin in the middle of the territory, the rep living furthest away from that pin is gone. All approved by the lawyers and lawsuit proof.

 

[anonymous]

This is how it was done at other companies with a lot bigger layoffs. Don't know if it will beneeded this time depends on size of layoff

 

[anonymous]

No. they will set a territory and decide how many reps are needed. If they need 3 reps, and there 3 reps currently living in that territory, then those three stay. If there are 4 reps, then they look at which of those reps has called on those physicians, then if they've sold those products, then if all those factors are equal then throw a pre-calculated number into the computer and out spits the answer (such as average of last three years end of year performance rating). If it is still all equal, then they simply drop a pin in the middle of the territory, the rep living furthest away from that pin is gone. All approved by the lawyers and lawsuit proof.

This is exactly right and had to be written by someone who experienced this process in H.Q.
The only difference is the new process will add in the cost of retaining one rep over another.
Salary and pension costs. If you are legacy Zeneca and qualify for the defined pension, say your good byes now because you are gone no matter what the rest of the formula says.

 

[anonymous]

This is exactly right and had to be written by someone who experienced this process in H.Q.
The only difference is the new process will add in the cost of retaining one rep over another.
Salary and pension costs. If you are legacy Zeneca and qualify for the defined pension, say your good byes now because you are gone no matter what the rest of the formula says.

The message will be, we gave these people the option to self I.D. in 2012 and they declined so we found a way to keep them but now we have to let them go.

 

[anonymous]

The message will be, we gave these people the option to self I.D. in 2012 and they declined so we found a way to keep them but now we have to let them go.

Anyone over 55 who declined the self I.D. option in 2012 is now 59 and will be the first to be forced out. No package, just a thank you and the standard separation payout. If you had taken the buyout in 2012 and invested it wisely, you would have more money now and could have found other employment virtually doubling your pay over those 4 years. I guess it is true that you can't fix stupid.

 

[anonymous]

New to AZ over the past few years. In '12 did they write out lump sum severance checks? Or just continue on payroll for the 13 weeks or whatever? Just asking because it will play a part in the diabetes BMS reps that rolled over a couple years back for vesting purposes in the retirement plans. Thanks.

 

[anonymous]

New to AZ over the past few years. In '12 did they write out lump sum severance checks? Or just continue on payroll for the 13 weeks or whatever? Just asking because it will play a part in the diabetes BMS reps that rolled over a couple years back for vesting purposes in the retirement plans. Thanks.

Here's the thing. I don't think the BMS time that we were given credit for will count toward the AZ retirement plan vesting period which is 5 years. We will only have a 2 and a half years with AZ which means they will take all of that money back. It sucks.

 

[anonymous]

Here's the thing. I don't think the BMS time that we were given credit for will count toward the AZ retirement plan vesting period which is 5 years. We will only have a 2 and a half years with AZ which means they will take all of that money back. It sucks.

For what it is worth, they paid us through March 60 days and then gave us 2 weeks per year plus bonuses at 100%. In a lump sum.
Four years later I'm making 110 base and 30k bonus!
Not nearly what AZ paid after 10 years
There is life after AZ
Btw I was 55 when I got whacked!

 

[anonymous]

Here's the thing. I don't think the BMS time that we were given credit for will count toward the AZ retirement plan vesting period which is 5 years. We will only have a 2 and a half years with AZ which means they will take all of that money back. It sucks.

The company match is immediately vested at 100%...the pension/retirement contributions are vested fully at 3 years of service.

 

[anonymous]

For what it is worth, they paid us through March 60 days and then gave us 2 weeks per year plus bonuses at 100%. In a lump sum.
Four years later I'm making 110 base and 30k bonus!
Not nearly what AZ paid after 10 years
There is life after AZ
Btw I was 55 when I got whacked!

That is what I expect this go around. Remember the big execs want to keep severance in line to protect their butts. Per years of service= PSS-2 weeks, DSM-3weeks, ebd- 4 weeks, ndb- 5 weeks. I was 58 in 2012, layed off but then retained. My experience (2012) is that they will leave anyone over 60 alone, to much risk for age discrimination. They would have to buy out years to retirement age, and they haven't done that since the merger. You were lucky to get on somewhere at 55. If I get whacked this time because my over 60 theory is incorrect, I will seek law suit. Also I would be a Walmart greeter before going back into Pharma.
Now self identify with more than two weeks, that would be extremely tempting

 

[anonymous]

That is what I expect this go around. Remember the big execs want to keep severance in line to protect their butts. Per years of service= PSS-2 weeks, DSM-3weeks, ebd- 4 weeks, ndb- 5 weeks. I was 58 in 2012, layed off but then retained. My experience (2012) is that they will leave anyone over 60 alone, to much risk for age discrimination. They would have to buy out years to retirement age, and they haven't done that since the merger. You were lucky to get on somewhere at 55. If I get whacked this time because my over 60 theory is incorrect, I will seek law suit. Also I would be a Walmart greeter before going back into Pharma.
Now self identify with more than two weeks, that would be extremely tempting

Seek a law suit? Get over yourself you old ass idiot. They already tried canning you once. It'll happen again. What, should I sue for being young? Female? Hispanic? This lawsuit culture is out of hand. Get over yourself gramps.

 

[anonymous]

If self ID were a choice, there will be a butt load more volunteer to leave this time vs 2012. That should say something about the continued downward spiral of this company! I mean, anyone who was here in 11,12' think about how much worse this company is mismanaged.

 

[anonymous]

For what it is worth, they paid us through March 60 days and then gave us 2 weeks per year plus bonuses at 100%. In a lump sum.
Four years later I'm making 110 base and 30k bonus!
Not nearly what AZ paid after 10 years
There is life after AZ
Btw I was 55 when I got whacked!

I was 56.

 

[anonymous]

They wouldn't odder self-Id too many people would leave

 

[anonymous]

They wouldn't odder self-Id too many people would leave

learn to spell dumbass.

 

[anonymous]

They wouldn't odder self-Id too many people would leave

That is the point of self I.D. They will cut huge masses so they offer self I.D. first.