I share a similar sentiment as the immediate chronologically previous review. I'm not going to rant because it's really not worth it (and HR would respond to and downplay each complaint because they monitor these reviews). But to respond to HR's response, the company is having a lot of firsts because it has been declining for years and it's finally catching up to them. It hasn't laid off people before until now. It was not a reorganization because it left huge holes in teams, despite it being a small layoff. Team members with the biggest salaries were laid off, who just so happened to be very important and knowledgeable people.
I can confirm workers were denied vacation for the holidays and couldn't spend time with their families. Hasn't happened before, until now.
As for DEI practices, I'm not aware of undergoing any mandatory DEI training. I remember signing some documents about it. I could have forgotten though, but there were some optional workshops for DEI, but total silence on LGBT people (in the handbook and during pride month), but that's typical for a Christian company in the Bible Belt.
I haven't heard of any "reverse discrimination" going on. There are some people that are "we can't fire this person because we might get hit with a lawsuit, so they're just kind of there, but we can't say that out loud" personnel, but that happens at any non-startup. Still stinks because you have to pick up their responsibilities.
And if HR responds with "please go and talk with HR"... no.
--------
I am once again replying to HR's response:
"The layoffs were part of a reorganization designed to align our teams with current business needs."
I still do not have a clear picture on the official stance on what the business needs are to necessitate and the goal of the "reorganization" was to this day, even after reading your message. It leaves the reader to fill in the gaps.
Missed this point before: as for the severance package, I'm unable to speak on its quality as I've never been laid off before.
"we’ve been able to change and adapt."
It depends on what type change you're referring to and to whom or what and under whom and when. Look at recent previous reviews on here about change, and I think they'd disagree with this.
Letting go of personnel is technically change, yes. It didn't help teams, so if there was a business need that I'm unaware of, it was a net negative in my eyes. But that's just my opinion.
I do think HR (including the responder) is open to feedback.
"HR will investigate the paid time off challenges you mentioned."
"your team during that period"
I can't say anything beyond these details, sorry. This did not happen under my team, but I speak in confidence. If this helped you in any capacity, you're welcome.
"As a company, we maintain a neutral stance on social and political topics."
I'm pointing out that ACST currently employs diversity practices to match the state's laws, no more and no less, and I believe we are on the same page by saying this. If you can confirm you have mandatory DEI training, I must've forgotten. However, I can confirm no legal wrong-doing on ACST's part for DEI.
If you have any other comments on the accuracy of my review, feel free to send them my way, and I will respond to them. I try to stay factually correct and as balanced as possible.
