Former Merckie with Question

Quote








The time to pay the piper for the bad decisions executive management made over the last 15 or so years is here. The shit is hitting the fan on a scale of epic proportions and although I ugh the writing has been on the wall in permanent marker for the last 5 years, at least, some people are having a harder time than others realizing they have stayed at the party a bit longer than any rational person would have.

I think that about catches you up on maybe 80% of the threads/posts you'll find here - minus the whining and indignation.
 








Anonymous said:
The time to pay the piper for the bad decisions executive management made over the last 15 or so years is here. The shit is hitting the fan on a scale of epic proportions and although I ugh the writing has been on the wall in permanent marker for the last 5 years, at least, some people are having a harder time than others realizing they have stayed at the party a bit longer than any rational person would have.

I think that about catches you up on maybe 80% of the threads/posts you'll find here - minus the whining and indignation.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. I suspected as much. I left in 2009 when the promotions stopped and begged several of my old friends to look for other jobs was told that they were loyal to Merck. Really sucks.
 
































I am a retiree. All I know is one blood bath after another. I thought it was bad when I retired. I don't know how the current reps can do their job when layoff is like a quarterly event. Did they get rid of the poor performing reps already during layoff #1? What did they call the reps being shown the door during layoff #2? Then #3 and on and on? I thought those reps left after #1 were the "top performers" critical to the selling model?
 




Anonymous said:
I am a retiree. All I know is one blood bath after another. I thought it was bad when I retired. I don't know how the current reps can do their job when layoff is like a quarterly event. Did they get rid of the poor performing reps already during layoff #1? What did they call the reps being shown the door during layoff #2? Then #3 and on and on? I thought those reps left after #1 were the "top performers" critical to the selling model?
Click to expand...

Layoffs are not based on performance. They are based on demographics to avoid lawsuits. Add in some personal vendettas and such and there you have it plain and simple.
 




Anonymous said:
Layoffs are not based on performance. They are based on demographics to avoid lawsuits. Add in some personal vendettas and such and there you have it plain and simple.
Click to expand...

We all know that. But officially they are going to use performance as the official criteria to layoff the "non-performing" reps and assure the "performing" reps all are well.
 




Top Bottom
Back
Quote