LAYOFF CRITERIA

I received a communication that the selection process for the AI/GI lay-offs was based on tenure, geography, and ratings, but there were no specifics about the "business rules" or the priority, exceptions, etc.

Does anybody know the specifics? Please don't speculate, just post if you KNOW specifically.

Thank you.

Even dm's don't know the criteria exactly. It was done by computer.

That's the $1million question? Trying to explain to someone outside of the industry how I was deselected from a series of criteria that was formulated by a computer. And then explaining the cattle call passcode#s that led to what sounded to me as a taped introductory from Kim Parks. I suppose she could not be on every simultaneous teleconference presenting the important information regarding job status. Oh well, who am I to question the dynamics.

It is the million dollar question because nobody can get a straight answer from management. The company would like everyone to believe that there was a consistant business rationale involved i.e. tenure first, then H.R. ratings that way there is no lawsuit for discrimination. But the fact that there is no transparency and no straight answers leads people to believe that the business rules involved in placement were not consistant. The more you talk to people and sort through the fallout, there are examples of inconsistancy i.e. H.R. ratings beating out tenure and visa versa. The last thing the company wants is people to find inconsistancy because it can lead to a lawsuit. Someone, somehow has to know the dirty truth or can at least provide an honest explanation providing an answer to the million dollar question. Maybe then I'll sign my severance agreement.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

It is the million dollar question because nobody can get a straight answer from management. The company would like everyone to believe that there was a consistant business rationale involved i.e. tenure first, then H.R. ratings that way there is no lawsuit for discrimination. But the fact that there is no transparency and no straight answers leads people to believe that the business rules involved in placement were not consistant. The more you talk to people and sort through the fallout, there are examples of inconsistancy i.e. H.R. ratings beating out tenure and visa versa. The last thing the company wants is people to find inconsistancy because it can lead to a lawsuit. Someone, somehow has to know the dirty truth or can at least provide an honest explanation providing an answer to the million dollar question. Maybe then I'll sign my severance agreement.

Hey, op, you are on to something here. Not suggesting civil disobedience, but expectation as to dynamics of selection/deselection process should be provided not only for us, but for those that still have placement. I cannot imagine feeling that you dodged the bullet and have no idea as to how/why. And I agree, totally, on the lack of transparency. How could one even pursue litigation with merit when you lack the documentations? That would explain the rush to get the severance agreements out. The HR person made note that you will not get the minimum 8 weeks if you do not sign the agreement. And I would bet there are a lot of people that have less than 4 years that would be enticed to hurry and sign. It would be unlikely that we will know the process unless a large number of people push for documentation..don't you think? I wonder if someone would be willing to pursue legal advice on this a.s.a.p. and share on the thread?

Why should 1000+ people accept this displacement without knowledge of the dynamics that sorted you from the ones that have remained?

Let's try to keep this thread at the top. There isn't as many on here now that it's over. I suspect that we may be losing voice mail and other communication resources soon to distance us from each other.

Surely there has to been untold others that are asking themselves the same $1million question. I have tried to sort it out many times these past two days as to how the determination was made. My tenure was short, but 3 downsizes in just that short year made me feel like a deer on a fenced-in gaming ranch. I ended up #5 in the region at year end and was hired in a senior executive title. So exactly how did I get to the unemployment line?

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Let's try to keep this thread at the top. There isn't as many on here now that it's over. I suspect that we may be losing voice mail and other communication resources soon to distance us from each other.

Surely there has to been untold others that are asking themselves the same $1million question. I have tried to sort it out many times these past two days as to how the determination was made. My tenure was short, but 3 downsizes in just that short year made me feel like a deer on a fenced-in gaming ranch. I ended up #5 in the region at year end and was hired in a senior executive title. So exactly how did I get to the unemployment line?

You need to go to bed, get some rest, clear your head and focus on the future. I was a manager during past reorganizations and have seen the process from the inside. This one was different, but I can tell you that everything is run by the law dept. and HR. You can';t win and trying to will only drain you of your remaining resources and energy. The quicker you can accept was has happened and move on, the better you will be. I'm not a kool-aid drinking company schmuck, just a realist. Good luck.

First if you are in an "at will" state, I doubt that it matters. Secondly, I suspect that randomness comes into play somewhere along the line. Perhaps all tenure above 4 years is considered equal, PDMs of 5 or 6 considered equal, anywhere within 10 miles of territory geographic center, etc.

We will likely never know and if we did, it probably still would not make sense.

Good luck to all.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

You need to go to bed, get some rest, clear your head and focus on the future. I was a manager during past reorganizations and have seen the process from the inside. This one was different, but I can tell you that everything is run by the law dept. and HR. You can';t win and trying to will only drain you of your remaining resources and energy. The quicker you can accept was has happened and move on, the better you will be. I'm not a kool-aid drinking company schmuck, just a realist. Good luck.

Yes, you are right. Thanks. I do need to get some rest and move on. Regardless of the criteria, time to move on and build some positive energy around me.And like I stated before...We are the captains of our own ship. We cannot control the wind, but we can move the sails...towards the storm or to calmer seas.

p.s. Besides, it's not cancer. It's a j-o-b.

Much to say here. As a displaced DM who has participated in many layoffs this lack of transparency is a first.

If you are frustrated by this then send a cordial e-mail to your human resources contact seeking an explanation of the criteria and the courtesy of a reply. You could also send a similar e-mail to Ray Worst, Kim Parks, etc.

If your old DM and RBD are around you can send an e-mail to them. RBD's and DM's hate these kind of e-mails because they have potential legal implications and they must follow through with human resources.

Legal action is typically very expensive, however law schools typically take on certain pro bono cases each year that law students hone their craft on.

How resourceful and how much time do you want to apply? A simple letter requires limited energy and gives you a sense of some power.

More to say about employment at will with respect to discrimination and transparency.

Maybe we will receive the guidelines in a subsequent email or with the fed ex severence agreement. I doubt it.

How many times are you going to get kicked in the teeth, spat on, etc., before you do something as simple as writing a cordial e-mail? If nothing else did your PriCareLess training not teach you to be resourceful and to ask open probes?

Right on former DM. It's difficult to digest that J&J employs intelligent and articulate people that spend an abundance of time analyzing the business, slicing and dicing and dissecting...and then my "dummied down" side is supposed to "zip it" and loathe in fear of big corporate legal deparments?

I found the whole process on Tuesday as PATHETIC, especially to all the folks that have many years employed here. A pre recorded message from Kim Parks that preempted HR person telling you to look for a FedEx promptly at your doorstep? Not to compare, but they might as well have said the trains are ready to load.

I agree with the other ops. The management has not been transparent at all for the last few months. This is all about protecting against litigation. As long as we feel we are beaten down and pressured to just sign the severance agreements and move on, we are unempowered. "Knowledge is empowerment". It is reasonable to "seek out" by communications for clarification on the dynamics. I would feel even more "dummied down" to think I am too fearful to pose the questions. It's one thing to feel defeated by the powerful machines...another to not even know their game plan.

I have not received the FedEx yet. Perhaps there will be more information. I think probably not because the further we move away and the time that lapses, it will just fade. We all know that part of our recovery is to let go and move on. My intent is not fueled by anger or "hanging on". I just want closure. I realize that monster legal department casts big and wide shadows and it would be a long, expensive and exhaustive road to challenge.

The last thing I want is an interviewer asking me why I was terminated from Johnson & Johnson and my response is "that's the $1 million dollar question". duh?

I'm not bitter (at all). I posted the question to gauge if anybody knew, or if there was any transparency at all. Apparently not. That's a red flag.

Ethics must be adhered to. Hypocrisy (if it exists) must be exposed. The Truth will set you free.

"I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow
truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every
authority which stood in their way." --Thomas Jefferson

Two things here- First, there was an interesting piece on Fox channel this morning regarding the unemployment issues in this economy. Specifically, the termination process and about severance agreements. Words of caution, not saying to not "sign", but read the document and perhaps get other advice on exactly what rights you are signing away to accept their severance agreement.

Secondly, I just went thru another downsize at another big pharma prior to coming to PriCara. The selection process was similar as to no transparency. As a multiple awards and highly tenured and titled rep, by the way female and over the age of 48, and after discovering others downsized with similar background, I contacted a labor attorney referred to me. By the way, she told me to cease all conversations with the company ombudsman that was referred to me when I contacted HR questioning the selection process as this resource was just an information gathering for their legal dept.After 2 months of letters flying back and forth to the attorneys representing the company, settlement negotiation started. My attorney was pursuing a possible E.E.O.C. filing and the company rather quickly started negotiating a settlement. The attorney advised me of the options of filing a claim(long, drawn out and exhaustive with risks of losing the claim in the end) or accepting the settlement. This must be a rather common occurance with pharma companies and their legal department as the negotiating on a fair amount came rather quickly with little more than exchange of letters. If you would be interested, E.E.O.C. filings by state and company are public and you can view thru the internet. My attorney had told me of 12 active filings against my company just in my state. The bottom line is that the legal costs was reasonable ($1200) and I was proud of myself for not walking away with my tail between my legs. The only negative, if that's what you want to call it, is that I had to sign the agreement that I would never seek employment with that company again and that both parties would be held in strict confidence. They, too, agreed future employers would not receive any information about me beyond my employment dates and salary information.

The reason I share this is the legal department knows the risk/benefit of sharing the dynamics of the selection process. And the odds of just how many people will challenge.It's likely that just a very few will. Those that will really need to seek out highly experienced and motivated labor attorneys. Mine was referred to me from a rep that was going thru similar with another pharma company and even in another state..her attorney connected me up with an attorney qualified in my state. Until these sort of things get exposed to the media or in class action litigation, it's unfortunate.The company corporate law departments are paid the big bucks to reduce public/government exposure and disclosure.

For me, personally, it was a stance on principle and ethics. I refused to take the "kicking" and cowl in the corner like a whipped puppy...and then come back and lick the company's hand. And trust me, it wasn't so difficult to move on and put it behind me. I knew at the time that I didn't have the energy to go the E.E.O.C. route, but I was pleasantly surprised as to how quickly the company wanted to move on too. It's just business like everything else..taking care of business.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Let's try to keep this thread at the top. There isn't as many on here now that it's over. I suspect that we may be losing voice mail and other communication resources soon to distance us from each other.

Surely there has to been untold others that are asking themselves the same $1million question. I have tried to sort it out many times these past two days as to how the determination was made. My tenure was short, but 3 downsizes in just that short year made me feel like a deer on a fenced-in gaming ranch. I ended up #5 in the region at year end and was hired in a senior executive title. So exactly how did I get to the unemployment line?

Here is a thought....Stop worrying about the criteria. You were layed off and that is FINAL. No amount of bitching about how it was arrived at will help unless you have the cash and time to hire a lawyer. They can lay you off for any reason they deem appropriate...get it? ANY REASON.

Originally Posted by Pricarasucks

Here is a thought....Stop worrying about the criteria. You were layed off and that is FINAL. No amount of bitching about how it was arrived at will help unless you have the cash and time to hire a lawyer. They can lay you off for any reason they deem appropriate...get it? ANY REASON.

Easy to see why you were laid off.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Two things here- First, there was an interesting piece on Fox channel this morning regarding the unemployment issues in this economy. Specifically, the termination process and about severance agreements. Words of caution, not saying to not "sign", but read the document and perhaps get other advice on exactly what rights you are signing away to accept their severance agreement.

Secondly, I just went thru another downsize at another big pharma prior to coming to PriCara. The selection process was similar as to no transparency. As a multiple awards and highly tenured and titled rep, by the way female and over the age of 48, and after discovering others downsized with similar background, I contacted a labor attorney referred to me. By the way, she told me to cease all conversations with the company ombudsman that was referred to me when I contacted HR questioning the selection process as this resource was just an information gathering for their legal dept.After 2 months of letters flying back and forth to the attorneys representing the company, settlement negotiation started. My attorney was pursuing a possible E.E.O.C. filing and the company rather quickly started negotiating a settlement. The attorney advised me of the options of filing a claim(long, drawn out and exhaustive with risks of losing the claim in the end) or accepting the settlement. This must be a rather common occurance with pharma companies and their legal department as the negotiating on a fair amount came rather quickly with little more than exchange of letters. If you would be interested, E.E.O.C. filings by state and company are public and you can view thru the internet. My attorney had told me of 12 active filings against my company just in my state. The bottom line is that the legal costs was reasonable ($1200) and I was proud of myself for not walking away with my tail between my legs. The only negative, if that's what you want to call it, is that I had to sign the agreement that I would never seek employment with that company again and that both parties would be held in strict confidence. They, too, agreed future employers would not receive any information about me beyond my employment dates and salary information.

The reason I share this is the legal department knows the risk/benefit of sharing the dynamics of the selection process. And the odds of just how many people will challenge.It's likely that just a very few will. Those that will really need to seek out highly experienced and motivated labor attorneys. Mine was referred to me from a rep that was going thru similar with another pharma company and even in another state..her attorney connected me up with an attorney qualified in my state. Until these sort of things get exposed to the media or in class action litigation, it's unfortunate.The company corporate law departments are paid the big bucks to reduce public/government exposure and disclosure.

For me, personally, it was a stance on principle and ethics. I refused to take the "kicking" and cowl in the corner like a whipped puppy...and then come back and lick the company's hand. And trust me, it wasn't so difficult to move on and put it behind me. I knew at the time that I didn't have the energy to go the E.E.O.C. route, but I was pleasantly surprised as to how quickly the company wanted to move on too. It's just business like everything else..taking care of business.

I'm not sure why you felt entitled to more money? Your services were no longer needed, why should you be kept. I highly doubt subjectivity was used in the selection process. The risk of litigation, in this case a civil suit, is not worth it. Several critera were used, in this case geography, perf. appraisals, market conditions in your area... Why is it so sinister. It doesn't make you a lap dog if you sign the agreement. It makes you a sane reasonable person.

Let me give you a scenerio. You have a 48 yr. old lady who cleans your house. She does a great job, you tell her so every year in her Christmas bonus check. You like her and use her services for 10 yrs. One day you say, I can't afford her anymore. You call her up, pay her 3 months salary and inform her she is no longer needed. Does she have to right to sue you for wrongful termination? Or do you feel it's different because you work for a large company, have more eduction, gave your heart and soul for years.

you are all at will employees, you don't have any rights, get over it, HR

Originally Posted by Anonymous

I'm not sure why you felt entitled to more money? Your services were no longer needed, why should you be kept. I highly doubt subjectivity was used in the selection process. The risk of litigation, in this case a civil suit, is not worth it. Several critera were used, in this case geography, perf. appraisals, market conditions in your area... Why is it so sinister. It doesn't make you a lap dog if you sign the agreement. It makes you a sane reasonable person.

Let me give you a scenerio. You have a 48 yr. old lady who cleans your house. She does a great job, you tell her so every year in her Christmas bonus check. You like her and use her services for 10 yrs. One day you say, I can't afford her anymore. You call her up, pay her 3 months salary and inform her she is no longer needed. Does she have to right to sue you for wrongful termination? Or do you feel it's different because you work for a large company, have more eduction, gave your heart and soul for years.

I'll spell out the difference so you understand....

Your wonderful 48 year old house keeper gets replaced by a 21 year old for half pay. In this country, both would have the right to sue. Chances are in domestic situations this never occurs because of something called loyalty. In this country however, we have laws that protect us when we work for large corporations who practice unfair, pick and choose, policies without full explanations.
Your response indicates your age in so many ways. Tenured employees remember a time when experience counted for something and some of us still hold on to the hope that corporations will be held accountable for their actions.

To the previous op, I understand what you are saying. My point is that the company did not provide how the determination in who was downsized. In communications with others that were also downsized, the consistency found was our tenure(higher salary) and age group. I was the top performing rep in the district and lived well within territory. This was a little different in that I was a specialty rep, so no pods.

Not to beat the dead horse, but why is it unreasonable to ask to be given the dynamics on the selection process. Yes, we are employed at will. But we also are protected by E.E.O.C..
And that is exactly why we may never get the transparency.

I am not arrogant in expecting "special" treatment. I asked for knowledge as to the selection in expecting "equal" treatment. That's all. I surmise that I fit in the same category as the other 999+ terminated on Tuesday...but what the hell is that category?

Precisely. I think that it is only fair to be provided the selection (or deselection) criteria. I worked with a rep who had more years of service. We had identical PDM reviews the past two years except that I received awards which directly corresponded to my performance (PQ). My partner did not. Are we equal and tenure then becomes the tiebreaker? Or is the PDM more of a subjective rating that should not have been used. Because we are sales reps shouldn't PQ and awards be the determinant?

To the previous op, I understand what you are saying. My point is that the company did not provide how the determination in who was downsized. In communications with others that were also downsized, the consistency found was our tenure(higher salary) and age group. I was the top performing rep in the district and lived well within territory. This was a little different in that I was a specialty rep, so no pods.

Not to beat the dead horse, but why is it unreasonable to ask to be given the dynamics on the selection process. Yes, we are employed at will. But we also are protected by E.E.O.C..
And that is exactly why we may never get the transparency.

I am not arrogant in expecting "special" treatment. I asked for knowledge as to the selection in expecting "equal" treatment. That's all. I surmise that I fit in the same category as the other 999+ terminated on Tuesday...but what the hell is that category?

Post the criteria simply so there isn't any hanky-panky. Did you get deselected because of the "rules" or because you're black, or too old, or a woman, etc. Probably none of these things, but how would you know for sure?

PRICARA- When you're NOT transparent, it looks like you have something to hide. ANSWER THE QUESTION, and if it holds water, everyone will move on.

Why is that so hard?...

I want to thank everyone on this thread for your intelligent and thoughtful comments. You have helped me through a difficult time. I always worked 40 hrs during the day and then almost every evening doing something on the computer, won many awards, specialty roles, always took on more work than I should have and yet this happened. I have more tenure than I want to say tonight. I know this was not personal, but I am taking it that way. I out worked everyone I know. But in the end, I think this was about how much I made and nothing else mattered. I am happy to be done with it, but will miss the many fine people I have worked with and for. I know there are some reps who get on here and give us all a bad name, but most of the reps. with this company have been good and hard working. We just find ourselves in a industry that is forced to change drastically to survive and we are the casualties.

Not providing transparency to our dismissal is morally wrong and flies in the face of the Credo (does it even exist). Unfortunately, it is not against the law and the company is not required to provide further explanation of the criteria.

Unless of course a lawsuit is brought and it proceeds to trial or the EE0C brings a formal complaint against JnJ. In these two situations the company will have to explain their criteria so the judge, jury, EEOC, etc., can determine if there is discrimination based on age, gender, race, etc.

The same rationale applies to employees at will. Yes you can be dismissed for any reason, but it will still have to stand up to the test of potential discrimination based on age, race, gender, etc.

On the other hand,so much for doing what is right. We were told as DM's--evaluate your actions in the context of whether or not you could live with your decision if it were to appear on the front page of WSJ, NY Times, Washington Post, etc.

Newspaper circulation is way down and it appears the moral compass of JNJ is down significantly.

You do not have to hire an attorney to visit the EEOC, nor do you have to pay to speak with them. The EEOC is a government agency designed to protect the little guy. They investigate complaints brought by employees or former employees to try and determine if there are grounds for a formal complaint against a company.

If 9OO people were to visit the EE0C, the PriCareLess and JnJ Human Resource Departments would potentially be inundated and overwhelmed with requests from the EEOC. JnJ would not like this at all. It would significantly bog down the human resource department from its other day to day operations.

Two can play this game people!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Two things here- First, there was an interesting piece on Fox channel this morning regarding the unemployment issues in this economy. Specifically, the termination process and about severance agreements. Words of caution, not saying to not "sign", but read the document and perhaps get other advice on exactly what rights you are signing away to accept their severance agreement.

Secondly, I just went thru another downsize at another big pharma prior to coming to PriCara. The selection process was similar as to no transparency. As a multiple awards and highly tenured and titled rep, by the way female and over the age of 48, and after discovering others downsized with similar background, I contacted a labor attorney referred to me. By the way, she told me to cease all conversations with the company ombudsman that was referred to me when I contacted HR questioning the selection process as this resource was just an information gathering for their legal dept.After 2 months of letters flying back and forth to the attorneys representing the company, settlement negotiation started. My attorney was pursuing a possible E.E.O.C. filing and the company rather quickly started negotiating a settlement. The attorney advised me of the options of filing a claim(long, drawn out and exhaustive with risks of losing the claim in the end) or accepting the settlement. This must be a rather common occurance with pharma companies and their legal department as the negotiating on a fair amount came rather quickly with little more than exchange of letters. If you would be interested, E.E.O.C. filings by state and company are public and you can view thru the internet. My attorney had told me of 12 active filings against my company just in my state. The bottom line is that the legal costs was reasonable ($1200) and I was proud of myself for not walking away with my tail between my legs. The only negative, if that's what you want to call it, is that I had to sign the agreement that I would never seek employment with that company again and that both parties would be held in strict confidence. They, too, agreed future employers would not receive any information about me beyond my employment dates and salary information.

The reason I share this is the legal department knows the risk/benefit of sharing the dynamics of the selection process. And the odds of just how many people will challenge.It's likely that just a very few will. Those that will really need to seek out highly experienced and motivated labor attorneys. Mine was referred to me from a rep that was going thru similar with another pharma company and even in another state..her attorney connected me up with an attorney qualified in my state. Until these sort of things get exposed to the media or in class action litigation, it's unfortunate.The company corporate law departments are paid the big bucks to reduce public/government exposure and disclosure.

For me, personally, it was a stance on principle and ethics. I refused to take the "kicking" and cowl in the corner like a whipped puppy...and then come back and lick the company's hand. And trust me, it wasn't so difficult to move on and put it behind me. I knew at the time that I didn't have the energy to go the E.E.O.C. route, but I was pleasantly surprised as to how quickly the company wanted to move on too. It's just business like everything else..taking care of business.

Admire your courage, these pharma co's love to kick out older reps over 40 when layoffs come, seen it happen at all of them. They have all these " majical" smoke screen formulas to make it look like the majority of employees were not over 40 so it was not age discrimination, so they also kick out some yung ones too -- but if some one really looked at the numbers you would get an age discrimination bias- that they cover up.
Did you get the severnce too?

Originally Posted by Anonymous

To the previous op, I understand what you are saying. My point is that the company did not provide how the determination in who was downsized. In communications with others that were also downsized, the consistency found was our tenure(higher salary) and age group. I was the top performing rep in the district and lived well within territory. This was a little different in that I was a specialty rep, so no pods.

Not to beat the dead horse, but why is it unreasonable to ask to be given the dynamics on the selection process. Yes, we are employed at will. But we also are protected by E.E.O.C..
And that is exactly why we may never get the transparency.

I am not arrogant in expecting "special" treatment. I asked for knowledge as to the selection in expecting "equal" treatment. That's all. I surmise that I fit in the same category as the other 999+ terminated on Tuesday...but what the hell is that category?

they'll never tell you. If you are over 40 and make too much money consider yourself in layoff criteria., it's sad but true. Pharma Companies are heartless.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

they'll never tell you. If you are over 40 and make too much money consider yourself in layoff criteria., it's sad but true. Pharma Companies are heartless.

It is really sad what has happened to corporate america and jobs. you used to be able to rely on a company and have a job intil you retired. Now, companies are earning double digit growth and returns, CEOs and execs are multi multi millionaires and it is still not enough for them, they still have to lay off the work force every few months. They throw out young 35-40 year olds as if they should retire to pasture because they make too much money, why? so the CEOs can hoard it for themselves???? What kind of future does America have when there will only be the VERY rich and the poor?? This is why the economy is in shambles, because of all the unethical corporate raiders destroying Americas workforce. There are no consumers left with any money to but anything, except the rich CEOs and top execs sucking off the money they don't deserve. Pathetic. We all know where they can go.

The bottom line is....if you've been there long enough, you're an expensive dinosaur, but, believe it or not, you're safe....the business rules are a little outdated...........this is a sinking ship, I used to work here, J&J great co., blah blah, blah, left on my own accord with great results (which helped me land my better job I have now).....no job is safe, but these guys are STUBBORN old white tory remnants...........


NO negotiating with managed care co.s, NO co-promotes, NO generic cos., ALL about device and profits..........WHY would they give a crap on the least profitable pain in the butt sector when they have so many others to worry about...............HELLO!

to the last post! So not true! I know two "older" reps in the northeast making over $100,000 base and they are still here! Sorry you're wrong!

Bravo!!!!! Good to hear other ops out there feel the same way!! I am guessing these are coming from people that have been in the industry for some time and have witnessed the degradation of the moral compass. I have been in some capacity of pharma for nearly 19 years, in fact started my career at Janssen. Believe it folks, most of the big pharma companies were built on credo and ethics and moral values."Perception is reality" is the compass my direct manager would deem the test for all our activity as the agent/representative for the company. Ethics was extremely big...major housecleaning if compromises on ethics.

When people slam the credo as worthless, it's indicative that the toxic environment created by management/leadership has diminished the very foundations this company was built upon.

And as long as employees feel they have no voice...perception is reality. When the ops post "get over it", "employed at will", "J&J will always win", it's very disturbing how complacent and quiet the voice has become.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Hey, op, you are on to something here. Not suggesting civil disobedience, but expectation as to dynamics of selection/deselection process should be provided not only for us, but for those that still have placement. I cannot imagine feeling that you dodged the bullet and have no idea as to how/why. And I agree, totally, on the lack of transparency. How could one even pursue litigation with merit when you lack the documentations? That would explain the rush to get the severance agreements out. The HR person made note that you will not get the minimum 8 weeks if you do not sign the agreement. And I would bet there are a lot of people that have less than 4 years that would be enticed to hurry and sign. It would be unlikely that we will know the process unless a large number of people push for documentation..don't you think? I wonder if someone would be willing to pursue legal advice on this a.s.a.p. and share on the thread?

Why should 1000+ people accept this displacement without knowledge of the dynamics that sorted you from the ones that have remained?

BECAUSE YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO KNOW WHY OR HOW UNLESS IT WAS DISCRM. YOU ARE AT WILL, THIS IS TYPICAL OF ALL PHARMA COMPANIES, TAKE THE SEV. SIGN THE PAPERS, YOU WOULD NEVER EVER WIN A CIVAL LAW SUIT. YOU CAN BE FIRED ANYTIME FOR ANYTHING! WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT? WHERE YOU SEXUALLY HARRASSED? I DIDNT THINK SO. WHERE YOU FIRED BECAUSE OF YOUR AGE, OR SKIN COLOR? I DIDNT THINK SO. NOW MOVE ON AND ACCEPT THAT BEING FIRED IS AWFUL AND REALITY OF THE TIMES, BUT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW THE CRITERIA OR DYNAMIC OF TERM. THAT IS THE COMPANIES RIGHT AND RIGHT TO KEEP IN HOUSE. SORRY.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

BECAUSE YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO KNOW WHY OR HOW UNLESS IT WAS DISCRM. YOU ARE AT WILL, THIS IS TYPICAL OF ALL PHARMA COMPANIES, TAKE THE SEV. SIGN THE PAPERS, YOU WOULD NEVER EVER WIN A CIVAL LAW SUIT. YOU CAN BE FIRED ANYTIME FOR ANYTHING! WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT? WHERE YOU SEXUALLY HARRASSED? I DIDNT THINK SO. WHERE YOU FIRED BECAUSE OF YOUR AGE, OR SKIN COLOR? I DIDNT THINK SO. NOW MOVE ON AND ACCEPT THAT BEING FIRED IS AWFUL AND REALITY OF THE TIMES, BUT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW THE CRITERIA OR DYNAMIC OF TERM. THAT IS THE COMPANIES RIGHT AND RIGHT TO KEEP IN HOUSE. SORRY.

They could have said "we flipped a coin" and I would accept that. I don't think people are looking for a lawsuit, just honesty.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

BECAUSE YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO KNOW WHY OR HOW UNLESS IT WAS DISCRM. YOU ARE AT WILL, THIS IS TYPICAL OF ALL PHARMA COMPANIES, TAKE THE SEV. SIGN THE PAPERS, YOU WOULD NEVER EVER WIN A CIVAL LAW SUIT. YOU CAN BE FIRED ANYTIME FOR ANYTHING! WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT? WHERE YOU SEXUALLY HARRASSED? I DIDNT THINK SO. WHERE YOU FIRED BECAUSE OF YOUR AGE, OR SKIN COLOR? I DIDNT THINK SO. NOW MOVE ON AND ACCEPT THAT BEING FIRED IS AWFUL AND REALITY OF THE TIMES, BUT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW THE CRITERIA OR DYNAMIC OF TERM. THAT IS THE COMPANIES RIGHT AND RIGHT TO KEEP IN HOUSE. SORRY.

While I AGREE with most of your points(and can spell); if you do not know the criteria, how do you know your individual case was not discrimination? Were minorities, women/men, young/old all let go in the politically-correct proportions? Did our new administration approve? Unless we know, we don't know. I believe that lawsuits are a waste of time and energy but would force the company to reveal the criteria.

White male, happy to have kept job, extremely disappointed in my employer.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

BECAUSE YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO KNOW WHY OR HOW UNLESS IT WAS DISCRM. YOU ARE AT WILL, THIS IS TYPICAL OF ALL PHARMA COMPANIES, TAKE THE SEV. SIGN THE PAPERS, YOU WOULD NEVER EVER WIN A CIVAL LAW SUIT. YOU CAN BE FIRED ANYTIME FOR ANYTHING! WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT? WHERE YOU SEXUALLY HARRASSED? I DIDNT THINK SO. WHERE YOU FIRED BECAUSE OF YOUR AGE, OR SKIN COLOR? I DIDNT THINK SO. NOW MOVE ON AND ACCEPT THAT BEING FIRED IS AWFUL AND REALITY OF THE TIMES, BUT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW THE CRITERIA OR DYNAMIC OF TERM. THAT IS THE COMPANIES RIGHT AND RIGHT TO KEEP IN HOUSE. SORRY.

Merriam-Webster.com------

"RIGHT" :being in accordance with what is just, good or proper.
:acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact.
:most favorable or desired.
roper;correct with regard to use, function or operation

"Words mean something. Yet today words are often thrown back and forth until they have no meaning" B.O.

Wall Street, government bailouts, greed, excessive compensation, no personal accountability, NO TRANSPARENCY........the list is endless.

Johnson and Johnson, the Credo, greed, excessive compensation for upper level management, no personal accountability, NO TRANSPARENCY on dismissal criteria......the list is endless.

Maybe Wall Street and JnJ have more in common than we realize!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

to the last post! So not true! I know two "older" reps in the northeast making over $100,000 base and they are still here! Sorry you're wrong!

Of course they kept some older reps--thye had to--Like was said before- they only kept them to keep within the formula of discrimination. They cannot terminate every over 40 year old- they have to keep some to satisfy the age requirement, just as they had to get rid of some young reps, they have a formula, they just will never release it. but if you look around the majority who was let go was older---over 40, and the majority retained was younger with lower salaries.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Wall Street, government bailouts, greed, excessive compensation, no personal accountability, NO TRANSPARENCY........the list is endless.

Johnson and Johnson, the Credo, greed, excessive compensation for upper level management, no personal accountability, NO TRANSPARENCY on dismissal criteria......the list is endless.

Maybe Wall Street and JnJ have more in common than we realize!!!!!!

Crooks!
You're best to be in business for yourself or you wil always be a slave to these corporate assholes!.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

I'll spell out the difference so you understand....

Your wonderful 48 year old house keeper gets replaced by a 21 year old for half pay. In this country, both would have the right to sue. Chances are in domestic situations this never occurs because of something called loyalty. In this country however, we have laws that protect us when we work for large corporations who practice unfair, pick and choose, policies without full explanations.
Your response indicates your age in so many ways. Tenured employees remember a time when experience counted for something and some of us still hold on to the hope that corporations will be held accountable for their actions.

You are wrong, I won't call you names or imply your immaturity. You are close to this situatin so you twist the facts to serve your purpose. My example was valid, your response was not. What is this concept of Loyaly you refer to. You worked with a company for many years. While working there you were paid a great wage. They were loyal to you as long as the business rational for having you employed worked. Today it does not. Declining pharma biz today and into the future is a market reality.
The criteria for deselection was OBJECTIVE. I'm positive there were more less tenured younger Reps let go than more tenured Reps.
Just because you are above 40 (as am I) you have no rights to a job. Fear of disgruntled Reps forces companies to use specific criteria when downsizing. You could almost argue that you and other tenured Reps have forced companies to release strong compitent people like yourself because past performance is no longer considered important.
If you all feel slighted, call the EEOC or contact an attorney. I'm confident you'll find there isn't much there.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Right on former DM. It's difficult to digest that J&J employs intelligent and articulate people that spend an abundance of time analyzing the business, slicing and dicing and dissecting...and then my "dummied down" side is supposed to "zip it" and loathe in fear of big corporate legal deparments?

I found the whole process on Tuesday as PATHETIC, especially to all the folks that have many years employed here. A pre recorded message from Kim Parks that preempted HR person telling you to look for a FedEx promptly at your doorstep? Not to compare, but they might as well have said the trains are ready to load.

I agree with the other ops. The management has not been transparent at all for the last few months. This is all about protecting against litigation. As long as we feel we are beaten down and pressured to just sign the severance agreements and move on, we are unempowered. "Knowledge is empowerment". It is reasonable to "seek out" by communications for clarification on the dynamics. I would feel even more "dummied down" to think I am too fearful to pose the questions. It's one thing to feel defeated by the powerful machines...another to not even know their game plan.

I have not received the FedEx yet. Perhaps there will be more information. I think probably not because the further we move away and the time that lapses, it will just fade. We all know that part of our recovery is to let go and move on. My intent is not fueled by anger or "hanging on". I just want closure. I realize that monster legal department casts big and wide shadows and it would be a long, expensive and exhaustive road to challenge.

The last thing I want is an interviewer asking me why I was terminated from Johnson & Johnson and my response is "that's the $1 million dollar question". duh?

I would NEVER tell an interviewer that you were terminated or displaced. You must interview as if you are a PriCara rep looking to move to stable ground. Leave it at that. Never tell -- I know this from experience.

Charles Charles is an ex-jannsen rep:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c339hwHBLbY

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Of course they kept some older reps--thye had to--Like was said before- they only kept them to keep within the formula of discrimination. They cannot terminate every over 40 year old- they have to keep some to satisfy the age requirement, just as they had to get rid of some young reps, they have a formula, they just will never release it. but if you look around the majority who was let go was older---over 40, and the majority retained was younger with lower salaries.

I know everyone keeps saying the majority of the layoffs were over forty, but that is not what I saw in our state. The oppisit was true. The Tenured reps were kept in every territory across the state. It looks like in most cases they looked at the geography 1st & then looked at tenure within the territory, except the none tenured KCL's were placed 1st and pushed out some tenured people.

We will never know. Purely speculation- geography?tenure?rating?age?mother's maiden name?

The whole basis of any layoff is MONEY. Company says we need 'X' dollars cut from personnel; hires consultants and bunch of outside lawyers and they make it happen within the specified time frame. Goal achieved! Spread the pain around (10 year, 5 month, 7 year rep, black/white, female/male, pick a category, good, bad, ok rating, don't matter), get over it, feel lucky if you keep this cushy job .

I don't buy the whole age thing either. In my state, the majority of the reps retained were very tenured and over the age of 40!!!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

We will never know. Purely speculation- geography?tenure?rating?age?mother's maiden name?

How bout Dead Weight, and non valuabale? Ring a bell? Any layoff is always a system to get rid of the cancer. This is no different. Managers and RD picked who was dispensable and axed them. period. end of story.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

How bout Dead Weight, and non valuabale? Ring a bell? Any layoff is always a system to get rid of the cancer. This is no different. Managers and RD picked who was dispensable and axed them. period. end of story.

BULL!!! That is absolutely not true. As a displaced DM, who thinks PriCareLess sucks and who has been involved in multiple downsizings, your comments are completely off base and ignorant.

The lack of transparency is unfortunate and speaks to a lack of moral compass, however RBD's and DM's have never eliminated representatives based on labeling them dead weight, nonvaluable, a cancer, etc. We only wish it was that easy to terminate these type of individuals.

You obviously have not had any exposure to these processes and it shows. PriCareLess sucks, JnJ sucks and your misleading opinion sucks.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Charles Charles is an ex-jannsen rep:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c339hwHBLbY

Thought he was placed?

Poster # 43 – Thank you for putting it in a simple form. They did it to save money. And so, if that is your goal, then who better to go after than the ones who make the most. I do think they were strategic and crafty about how they did it, so as not to leave a trail. In one state it may look like they went after over 40s and in another not, but if we looked at the entire list, we would see the formula. Human sacrifice is alive and well in the US and there is no one to stop it. As a matter of fact, I think this entire “economic crisis” is about giving cover to the corporations to do just this.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Poster # 43 – Thank you for putting it in a simple form. They did it to save money. And so, if that is your goal, then who better to go after than the ones who make the most. I do think they were strategic and crafty about how they did it, so as not to leave a trail. In one state it may look like they went after over 40s and in another not, but if we looked at the entire list, we would see the formula. Human sacrifice is alive and well in the US and there is no one to stop it. As a matter of fact, I think this entire “economic crisis” is about giving cover to the corporations to do just this.

You sad bunch of socialists think you are entitled to lifetime employment with the same company. Welcome to America.

Agree with poster #46. I, too, am a displaced DM and trust me we had nothing to do with the decision of who to cut and who to keep. As a matter of fact, some of the weaker reps were retained.