This is not very Chad of you, PwC.
In another round of “voluntary separations” (aka silent layoffs with goodbye perks) at PwC UK — not to be confused with an earlier round of voluntary separations last November — the firm is demanding staff not mention that whole being forced out thing in their final emails to colleagues. Oh, and don’t disparage the firm or partners and be sure to add how much you’ve enjoyed your time working here. At least that’s what Financial Times has reported.
The layoffs have not been announced (that always goes over well, it’s not like anyone will notice members of the team up and disappearing like they’ve been raptured) and it’s unknown just how many people have been cut, only that it’s a “significant round” affecting consulting, risk, and operational and managed service lines according to someone in the know. Clearly PwC wanted to keep this all under wraps so kudos to whoever leaked this nonsense to FT.
FT:
Staff who have been offered a package to leave have been notified individually, the people said. They have been told they must not tell other staff if they accept the offer and to follow a script provided by HR if they want to send leaving notes to colleagues.
In guidance sent to affected employees, reviewed by the FT, PwC said: “Should you decide to accept this voluntary offer, it is possible for you to send out a note to a defined group, however this must not refer to the voluntary severance offer or the circumstances of leaving (suggested wording for this note is given below but we recognise that you will naturally want to personalise this).”
It’s hard to imagine this getting any worse but it does. PwC says they reserve the right to review any messages before they’re sent out. And if someone takes it upon themselves to send an off-message email? What are they going to do, fire you?
To ensure departing staff color within the lines on their goodbye notes, the firm insisted any communications “not be derogatory to PwC or its employees/partners” and provided this template:
“The content of your comms should follow this approach . . . ‘Following recent discussions with my [relationship leader], I have taken the decision to leave PwC. It hasn’t been an easy decision for me to reach but now that I have, I am excited about what the future holds for me and the new opportunities on the horizon. I have really enjoyed my time at PwC and the opportunity to work with such talented colleagues.’”
It’s one thing to request staff not mention they’re being pushed out but to demand compliments on their way out too? Lame. That better be one helluva severance package.
PwC asks for silence from departing staff in programme of UK job cuts [Financial Times]
I don’t see what the problem is here. It sounds like they are offering severance packages to the employees being let go. In the US, it’s common for severance packages to come with some sort of NDA or other language which may include prohibitions on saying certain things. Terminated employees don’t have to accept the severance offer if they don’t want to. They are free to say anything they want in their farewell email and conversations with other employees. They just won’t get any severance compensation.
I think it’s reasonable for a company to offer compensation to an employee they are terminating in exchange for that employee not bashing the firm on their way out.
They are taking the severance package hostage and demanding employees agree to their silly requirements. This is different compared to NDA.
How does that cool aid taste?
I do believe that this is the first time in like 15 years I’ve been appearing in the comments section on this site that I’ve been accused of drinking the Big 4 firms’ Kool-aid.
I’ll cosign that. You’ve definitely been called a bootlicker before though.
And who would forgo the package? Only people with a certainly level of wealth and security, courage to endure professional and personal pushback, and a great sense of moral responsibility to warn others, if they would like to share negative experiences. Now what percentage of those fired does that leave us at?
There’s a difference between an NDA and what I’ll call a DDA (directed disclosure agreement). In one, they tell you what you can’t say, but in the other they tell you what to say. No problem with an NDA, but don’t tell your employees they have to tell the world they DECIDED to LEAVE.
In guidance sent to affected employees, reviewed by the FT, PwC said: “Should you decide to accept this voluntary offer, it is possible for you to send out a note to a defined group, however this must not refer to the voluntary severance offer or the circumstances of leaving (suggested wording for this note is given below but we recognise that you will naturally want to personalise this).”
As I said in my previous comment, it looks like PwC is giving the terminated employees a choice: (a) bash us on your way out or (b) accept some money from us in exchange for letting us handle your farewell messaging. This doesn’t seem bad to me.
So they’re buying the fib. Got it.
Grow up. This is the real world.
No legitimate company works this way, regardless of your bootlicking. You are trying so hard to justify egregious behavior.
The “real world” of being conned and being asked to con others. Ick written all over it.
But as you said, either way, you’re gone. The pay isn’t to decide if you want to leave or not, just paid to use their messaging. And since they are paying you to say something that isn’t true, there’s another word for that. And as a big 4 veteran, I’m sure you know where that has gotten gotten firms, but that culture is a topic for another article.
Headline news in FT and going concern… Sounds like mission NOT accomplished. Now everyone knows about the layoffs and that the firm tried to sweep it under the rug.
I bet even KPMG couldn’t think of this.
No surprises here…as a female 20-year veteran that was forced out 15 years ago, I was told that my severance depended on my agreement NOT to pursue an age discrimation claim or make disparaging comments about the firm. At that time, it was standard practice to fire staff (particularly women) who had reached 20 years of service and/or 60 years of age. I worked in HR so I know this from first-hand knowledge.