No Layoffs: VW Says 9300 Have Agreed So Far To Early Retirement In Cost Cutting Move

All part of managing the Dieselgate noose. This was expected, and it *appears* to have been managed well.

So the real effects of all of the lying and corruption from VW / Audi. Investors aren't the only people affected, working class people losing their jobs because VAG and their subsidiaries a) don't have the engineering prowess to create products that produce they results they need and b) willing to lie and cheat to get those results.

I wonder if the Audi employees who wrote the original source code ever thought about the consequences of their actions. I wonder if any of those individuals are still working there while 9300 people lose their jobs? Despicable.

Firewombat: Read the reports. VW employees who VOLUNTEER are being "packaged out" with early retirement offerings. Mass firings aren't happening as far I know. Please advise if you know otherwise.

Additionally, VW has had a massive negative impact of over US$25,000,000,000 (that's 25 BILLION dollars so far!) in fines, penalties, settlements, repair costs, and vehicle buy-backs. Additionally, over 100 lawsuits are currently in progress against VW worldwide. The dust has not settled on Dieselgate. Not by a long shot.

Do you really expect VW to guarantee that all existing employees will have a job until they retire at age 65, even in light of these massive write-offs and financial losses? I view this news as VW doing what's necessary to stay alive, which is a good thing if people expect VW to be around so they can pay all their fines, penalties, and fix or buy back affected vehicles.

Hi Steve, if you've ever been in a corporate environment where a similar "volunteer retirement" process has happened then you'd probably realise that it's way a nice way of saying leave or be fired.

If you don't take the "volunteer retrenchment" option when a company down scales or restructures then your remaining options are retrenchment or your job possibly being restructured, i.e. a pay cut - if you're lucky.

I know you're a bit sensitive about this since you're also a victim of dieselgate, although not nearly in the same way these workers are, but to answer your question, My expectation was for VW and Audi not to lie and cheat in the first place. VW are doing what they need to do and of course I understand that but it still doesn't make the situation right, hence my comment.

In the end thousands of people have lost their jobs because of a corporate culture at VW / Audi grounded in corruption and deceit. The company survives but these worker's lives have been impacted in the most negative way because the management team at VAG were ambitious, lazy, incompetent, and dishonest. So forgive me for being on the side of workers who lost their jobs vs. the company and it's board but that's where I stand.

Firewombat,: I've spent most of my life in corporate environments, working my way up from "lowly worker" to middle-management, to advisor to VP, to independent consultant. Been there, done that.

Voluntary Retirement (and the early retirement package that accompanies it) is an entirely different thing than getting fired! I've been in the biz long enough to have been (handsomely) packaged out a few times, as well as being fired a few times (without a golden parachute), so yeah, I know the difference.

While I realize that it's *possible* VW might be outright lying (i.e., claiming 9,000 employees have volunteered for early retirement and were "packaged out", when in fact, they were all just fired or pressured out), so far, we have no evidence (none, whatsoever) to support your suspicion that this has actually happened. If you have any proof to support you suspicions, then please share it with us!



re "...I know you're a bit sensitive about this since you're also a victim of dieselgate..." -- I encourage you to fact-check what you think you "know"! Here are some facts for your consideration:
- My vehicle is affected by Dieselgate (no surprise to anyone on this site).
- I don't feel in the least bit victimized.
- So far, I have received only positive financial benefits from the scandal (~$1500 in pre-settlement "sorry money" and benefits).
- Additional settlement cash is coming my way, to the tune of $7,000 to $10,000. Sweet!
- I plan to hang on to my vehicle for a while, so depreciation is not my concern. Especially when factoring in that big fat settlement check coming my way :-)
- As much as I don't like the fact that VW/Audi engaged in illegal and unethical behavior, I'm VERY HAPPY with my car, my purchase, and my 3.0L diesel engine.
- I've never attempted to hide the fact that I drive a Dieselgate Q5. In fact, I often disclose it voluntarily.
- I've never played the victim card in any of my posts. That's because I don't identify with "victim mentality." Dieselgate has been cash-positive for me. In fact, I feel I'm a *beneficiary* of Dieselgate.

These are the facts, and yet, in YOUR mind, you have allowed yourself to believe I'm "a bit sensitive" and I'm "a victim of dieselgate".



re "In the end thousands of people have lost their jobs because of a corporate culture at VW / Audi grounded in corruption and deceit."

True. But your statement (above) does not tell the whole story. If 9,000 people were FIRED (and so far, there is no evidence to support your suspicion that they might be), then that's a reason to get your shorts in a knot and blast VW yet again. But if 9,000 people, who were approaching retirement age, volunteered to get an early retirement package that's attractive to them, and which saves VW money in the long run, then that merits no negative spin, as far as I'm concerned.


Summary: Feel free to rightfully bash VW for Dieselgate, for lying to the public, for breaking laws with arrogant impunity, for

(continuation from my post above)

...poisoning the air and injuring people, for continuing to cover their butts rather than to hang their heads in shame in genuine remorse. But bashing VW for EVERYTHING because... you know... Dieselgate, that just doesn't make sense to me.

Sorry it doesn't make sense to you and you're so incredibly defensive but "volunteer retirement" is the same as being fired because you lose your job even thought you didn't necessarily want to leave. I don't think VW are lying, I never accused them of lying about volunteer retirement, that's what it's called. My opinion is that, regardless of industry or company, "volunteer retirement" is the same as losing your job. I just think volunteer retirement is a nice way of saying retrenching or firing people.

What happens if nobody takes the volunteer retrenchment? And the company, VW, says it still needs to cut costs? What happens then Steve? Does VW just say "ok, no probs, no one wants to retire so we'll just forget about cost cutting"? No, people start getting fired and retrenched because there's no stopping the cost cutting. So it's the same goal, different method. Volunteer retirement = Fired

And I have not blamed VW for "EVERYTHING", you need to calm down. I've blamed them for causing people to lose their jobs. Which is their fault, so is dieselgate and I will continue to call them out for it and blame them for it especially when people on the ground are losing their jobs because of it. Sorry if that upsets you, not sure what dog you have in this fight, other than being an Audi owner, but please read your last statement again... it's a bit laugable.

I encourage you to argue for or against facts, rather than arguing against the speculation you imagine. For example, you ask "What happens if nobody takes the volunteer retrenchment?" Well, we won't know that answer in VW's case, because that didn't happen! Yet in YOUR mind, someone aged 63 who says "hell, I'll take 80% of my regular pay and not work for the next two years, and then retire with my full pension" (example of "Voluntary Early Retirement"), "is the same as being fired" (your quoted belief).

In other words, it's like you're asking "What if VW HAD actually fired 9,000?" Well, then it would be a very different scenario than what it actually is, wouldn't it?

I have run out of ideas to help you understand the difference between "voluntary early retirement" and getting fired. Perhaps a dictionary or Google might be helpful. It's time for me to check out of this one.

@TheSteve you said: "Yet in YOUR mind, someone aged 63 who says "hell, I'll take 80% of my regular pay and not work for the next two years, and then retire with my full pension" (example of "Voluntary Early Retirement"), "is the same as being fired" (your quoted belief)."

Taking a voluntary 20% pay cut for two years makes no sense at all and most decidedly would be a slap in the face as would being fired.

A "golden handshake" for early retirement usually involves full pay plus a bonus.

Ok Steve. Fact. almost 10,000 people lost their jobs because VW needs to cut back on costs because of dieselgate. Voluntary retirement is a way of getting rid of people. It is a way of ending people's employment. It is a way of firing people.

MDarringer wrote "Taking a voluntary 20% pay cut for two years makes no sense at all and most decidedly would be a slap in the face as would being fired."

Matt, re-read my post. You've missed something huge: I speak of taking a 20% pay-cut AND NOT HAVING TO WORK, AT ALL, for 2 years, then getting full retirement pension. In other words, you get 80% of your full-time pay for NOT WORKING! While you're not working, you're free to seek work (and income) if you want. What I'm saying is completely different from what you understand: a 20% pay cut while working.

According to the people who I know, and who took similar voluntary early retirement packages:
- Some retired immediately with less income
- Some took on temporary, more relaxed work at 70% of their former salary, and overall, had 50% more income (due to getting 80% of former income and not having to work + new job at lower pay)
- Some worked part-time, getting about 25% of their former salary, and overall, had 105% of their former income while they worked just part-time
- ALL were very happy with the outcome

So much for "a slap in the face" and being the same as being fired.

As with all things, people "see" only that which their thought system lets them perceive and understand.

@TheSteve I know you're a Democrat and thinking logically is antithetical to you, but when you say "...I speak of taking a 20% pay-cut AND NOT HAVING TO WORK, AT ALL, for 2 years, then getting full retirement pension." these words you act like not working makes up for getting slammed with a 20% income cut.

Not working is immaterial. A 20% loss of income for two years is economic rape.

MDarringer wrote "...Not working is immaterial. A 20% loss of income for two years is economic rape..."

I guess you're right... for the group of people who don't think beyond showing up and collecting a paycheck, or who desire the security of the status quo. For them, all they see is "But they're offering a 20% paycut." For these people, such a proposition is undesirable. But because it's VOLUNTARY, they would not volunteer, and they would remain unaffected. You have articulated this way of thinking very well.

But for smarter people -- those with a dash of self-confidence and a bit of resourcefulness -- they quickly realize that while they're NOT WORKING over the next 2 years (and still collecting 80% of their regular salary), they can EASILY make more money than they did in previous years, just by choosing to work again! And they could do this by applying for another, more relaxed, and possibly lower-paying job, all while working fewer hours! They see this proposition as "More money, for less work." They interpret this as a positive thing, and likely volunteer for it to take advantage of the offer.

Both groups are right, yet depending on which group you're in (based on your thinking), you'll either hate the idea and not volunteer, or see it as a good proposition and volunteer. Nobody is forced, because it's voluntary.

The difference is all in how someone thinks about their circumstances. You and I have given good demos of both perspectives. Thank you for your part in helping bring this matter to greater clarity.

@TheSteve I know that as a Democrat you hate people, so you belittle people on the verge of wanting to retire by implying that they are unintelligent for not getting a job elsewhere. That is a disrespectful and hateful response to potential retirees. Retirement means not having to work anymore PERIOD.

When you retire, I sincerely hope you are intelligent enough to work 12 hours a day / 7 days a week.

If you say that you are invested etc. so that you don't have to, your comments about the unintelligent people who are opposed to a 20% rape to their income makes you a hypocrite.

hateful hypocrisy...love it

Wtf: "Some took on temporary, more relaxed work at 70% of their former salary, and overall, had 50% more income (due to getting 80% of former income and not having to work + new job at lower pay)"

Ok, I know what I'm dealing with now, this guy is an idiot.

Hey Firewombat, let me make it simpler for you so you can understand the math.

Say that someone normally makes $100,000 a year (please don't get fixated on how realistic this is for a VW worker... I'm just using round numbers to make it easier for you to). This is their "pre-early retirement" yearly salary.


Part 1:
------
So a 20% paycut can be expressed as follows:
$100,000 - (20% x $100,000) = X (where X is the lower pay for not working)
or...
$100,000 - $20,000 = $80,000

So in part 1, the employee leaves their regular, full-time job paying $100,000/year, and will earn only $80,000 per year, and NOT HAVE TO WORK.


Part 2:
------
The employee chooses to earn more money, so they get a full-time job that only pays $70,000 a year. Same amount of work (full-time employee), but now they only get paid $70,000 a year IN THEIR NEW JOB. (Let me know if you need help with the math of how $70,000 is 70% of their old $100,000 income).


Part 3:
------
But remember, the employee who took the voluntary early retirement is now collecting income from two (2) sources!:
1) Ongoing early-retirement salary of $80,000 per year
2) New full-time job at $70,000 per year

Add the two income sources together ($80,000 + $70,000) and you get $150,000 total income per year. If you compare the person's new annual income of $150,000/year to their old, pre-voluntary retirement salary of $100,000/year, you get 50% more income! (Let me know if you need help with the math with respect to $150,000 being 50% more than $100,000).


So there you go, Firewombat. I hope you can understand this math now.

Oops, I forgot to articulate some basic concepts in case Firewombat is unclear about these:

1) “Retirement”: Typically means a person stops working at age 65, and starts collecting a pension. Typically, annual retirement income is MUCH lower than when working full-time.

2) “Early Retirement”: Typically means a person stops working before the age of 65, and *might* start collecting a pension. The understanding is typically: I get to retire (stop working) sooner, but I’ll make less money sooner.

3) If a person takes an “early retirement” offering, they might elect to work part-time to supplement their income.

4) A person who accepts an “early retirement” package from work might desire to keep earning the same level of income, or more. In these cases, they (a) accept the early retirement package from their current employer and stop working for their current employer (e.g., they have retired early from their current employer). They can then (b) take on a full-time job. This means they get income from (a) the early retirement package and (b) their new job. In effect, this is like the person chose not to retire early, but just gets the same (or more) total income for the same (or less) hours of work.


Firewombat: Forgive me if you already know this. It’s just that your post of 6/9/2017 2:13:47 AM came across to me as though none of this makes any sense to you. I hope this helps.

It all makes sense to me. VW / Audi lied and cheated, got caught, lost a lot of money and now people are losing their jobs, 9,300 of them.

People got fired because of a company's greed and corruption and you're trying to defend the company? I hope more people aren't fired or lose their jobs because VW's sales are up but with no moral compass who knows what will happen?

Also, you should try to use more fact-based arguments in the future because the bs you're spitting out here comes across as misinformed and ignorant to the situation these employees find themselves in.