I'm always torn on these things. People don't want government to give hand outs but they also want their companies to act like the government if they lay someone off by giving them a big bonus to go home.

Plan as though your job is not guaranteed tomorrow. Severance packages are a blessing, not a right. And companies aren't the government. You agree to work for a certain wage and neither party is obligated to do anything beyond that, however profitable they may have been during your tenure.

Over_ed said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

Microsoft has had really good profits over the past 5 years (profits up ~100%) -- $101B 2025.

https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/microsoft-buyout-stock/2026/04/23/id/1253955/

Despite these profits, MS announced today it is cutting staff with buyouts. Combination of focus on younger staff as AI rolls out as well as reducing expenses to help pay for AI infrastructure.

Voluntary cuts are focused on older workers--Age plus Microsoft years >= 70. About 7% of employees are eligible.

I generally hate MS with a passion many would reserve for the IRS during tax season. Or Clippy, IE, Windows 8, and now Windows 11/copilot to name a few.

But this "golden handshake" is exactly the way letting go of employees should be handled by profitable corporations looking to reduce staff, imo.

2 words I have difficulty typing - "Good Microsoft"

---

That's all good if you have a retirement plan in place but the rule you are talking about is going to hit a lot of folks in their 50's who are going to have a rougher time finding a new job as companies want to hire younger people. It's "voluntary" which is fine but if I was at MS and in the "eligible" category I'd be nervous as hell if I wasn't sitting on a nice retirement nest egg already. I also expect they will be lucky not to get sued over this if they aren't very careful.

---

Rules of 70 (and variations) have been used in many different industries, universities, government many many times. They are safe harbored in the law as long as they are voluntary. We will have to wait a few weeks to see the final offer, but I am pretty sure it will at least be generous, probably very generous.

Jobs are not nearly as secure as in the past; hard for me to ding a company for doing something that is positive for its older workers and reducing the need to lay off younger workers. imo a win-win.

---

As long as it is truly voluntary and the packages are generous I agree with you but if either of those things isn't the case they will get hammered. Let's just say Microsoft isn't exactly known as a generous company that treats their employees who they are getting rid of well. Vizcaino vs Microsoft for instance was one of the most important employment law cases in the last 50 years over how MS was trying to hire people as 1099 workers to avoid having to give them stock and so the entire structure of what a 1099 vs what is a W2 employee changed. They aren't known for their benevolence.

Lots of companies aren't in a position to offer lavish severance like Silicon Valley can.

tmaggie50 said:

---

I'm always torn on these things. People don't want government to give hand outs but they also want their companies to act like the government if they lay someone off by giving them a big bonus to go home.

Plan as though your job is not guaranteed tomorrow. Severance packages are a blessing, not a right. And companies aren't the government. You agree to work for a certain wage and neither party is obligated to do anything beyond that, however profitable they may have been during your tenure.

---

Don't disagree but this is a package designed to specifically go after people based on age as a significant reason for getting rid of them and not competence or work performance. This is about trying to get rid of older workers. So long as that stays voluntary and the packages are generous that's fine but there is a reason you can't just fire someone for how many candles are on their birthday cake.

sorry to hear it man. good luck!

Microsoft doesn't care about anyone no matter how they try and project this. I know first hand they are straight up evil.

I wonder if my neighbor across the street who works for MS will be impacted. I'm not sure of his age, but he has to be in at least his mid-50s due to having 1 kid already through medical school and into residency and another about to graduate college. I hope not. Seems like a good dude.

I've seen this game before at Compaq and HP. The first rounds are voluntary, with decent payouts. The next rounds will not be so generous- and the one after that is marginal at best.

aggie93 said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

Microsoft has had really good profits over the past 5 years (profits up ~100%) -- $101B 2025.

https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/microsoft-buyout-stock/2026/04/23/id/1253955/

Despite these profits, MS announced today it is cutting staff with buyouts. Combination of focus on younger staff as AI rolls out as well as reducing expenses to help pay for AI infrastructure.

Voluntary cuts are focused on older workers--Age plus Microsoft years >= 70. About 7% of employees are eligible.

I generally hate MS with a passion many would reserve for the IRS during tax season. Or Clippy, IE, Windows 8, and now Windows 11/copilot to name a few.

But this "golden handshake" is exactly the way letting go of employees should be handled by profitable corporations looking to reduce staff, imo.

2 words I have difficulty typing - "Good Microsoft"

---

That's all good if you have a retirement plan in place but the rule you are talking about is going to hit a lot of folks in their 50's who are going to have a rougher time finding a new job as companies want to hire younger people. It's "voluntary" which is fine but if I was at MS and in the "eligible" category I'd be nervous as hell if I wasn't sitting on a nice retirement nest egg already. I also expect they will be lucky not to get sued over this if they aren't very careful.

---

Rules of 70 (and variations) have been used in many different industries, universities, government many many times. They are safe harbored in the law as long as they are voluntary. We will have to wait a few weeks to see the final offer, but I am pretty sure it will at least be generous, probably very generous.

Jobs are not nearly as secure as in the past; hard for me to ding a company for doing something that is positive for its older workers and reducing the need to lay off younger workers. imo a win-win.

---

As long as it is truly voluntary and the packages are generous I agree with you but if either of those things isn't the case they will get hammered. Let's just say Microsoft isn't exactly known as a generous company that treats their employees who they are getting rid of well. Vizcaino vs Microsoft for instance was one of the most important employment law cases in the last 50 years over how MS was trying to hire people as 1099 workers to avoid having to give them stock and so the entire structure of what a 1099 vs what is a W2 employee changed. They aren't known for their benevolence.

---

I actually spoke with Balmer as a grad student 30-odd years ago where he did my Research Center a favor. Since then, I can think of little they did as good. So I totally agree. :-) Which makes this offer shocking to me. Probably the reason I OP'd. Besides it was good to see workers not get the shaft in this AI hysteria.

Laying off the olds (who have industry knowledge) to replace them with H1Bs.

Microsoft is a virus on our society.

harge57 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

Microsoft has had really good profits over the past 5 years (profits up ~100%) -- $101B 2025.

https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/microsoft-buyout-stock/2026/04/23/id/1253955/

Despite these profits, MS announced today it is cutting staff with buyouts. Combination of focus on younger staff as AI rolls out as well as reducing expenses to help pay for AI infrastructure.

Voluntary cuts are focused on older workers--Age plus Microsoft years >= 70. About 7% of employees are eligible.

I generally hate MS with a passion many would reserve for the IRS during tax season. Or Clippy, IE, Windows 8, and now Windows 11/copilot to name a few.

But this "golden handshake" is exactly the way letting go of employees should be handled by profitable corporations looking to reduce staff, imo.

2 words I have difficulty typing - "Good Microsoft"

---

That's all good if you have a retirement plan in place but the rule you are talking about is going to hit a lot of folks in their 50's who are going to have a rougher time finding a new job as companies want to hire younger people. It's "voluntary" which is fine but if I was at MS and in the "eligible" category I'd be nervous as hell if I wasn't sitting on a nice retirement nest egg already. I also expect they will be lucky not to get sued over this if they aren't very careful.

---

If someone has been at MSFT long enough to meet this rule of 70 and not sitting on a huge nest egg they did something seriously wrong.

---

You got many likes but bad take.
Not everyone is a Warren Buffett. Some people can only do a hard day's work and go home and they don't need to be treated like dispensable trash.

Quote:

---

Age plus Microsoft years >= 70

---

Interesting. Current CEO's MS+age is 71. Is he stepping down?

Signel said:

---

Microsoft doesn't care about anyone no matter how they try and project this. I know first hand they are straight up evil.

---

Substitute any Corporation for Microsoft in your sentence. None of them give a *****

But that's okay by me. I trade my skills and time for their money.

harge57 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

Microsoft has had really good profits over the past 5 years (profits up ~100%) -- $101B 2025.

https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/microsoft-buyout-stock/2026/04/23/id/1253955/

Despite these profits, MS announced today it is cutting staff with buyouts. Combination of focus on younger staff as AI rolls out as well as reducing expenses to help pay for AI infrastructure.

Voluntary cuts are focused on older workers--Age plus Microsoft years >= 70. About 7% of employees are eligible.

I generally hate MS with a passion many would reserve for the IRS during tax season. Or Clippy, IE, Windows 8, and now Windows 11/copilot to name a few.

But this "golden handshake" is exactly the way letting go of employees should be handled by profitable corporations looking to reduce staff, imo.

2 words I have difficulty typing - "Good Microsoft"

---

That's all good if you have a retirement plan in place but the rule you are talking about is going to hit a lot of folks in their 50's who are going to have a rougher time finding a new job as companies want to hire younger people. It's "voluntary" which is fine but if I was at MS and in the "eligible" category I'd be nervous as hell if I wasn't sitting on a nice retirement nest egg already. I also expect they will be lucky not to get sued over this if they aren't very careful.

---

If someone has been at MSFT long enough to meet this rule of 70 and not sitting on a huge nest egg they did something seriously wrong.

---

Maybe, but not everyone is responsible as they should be with their money and some people have unforseen circumstances. Like I said I have no issue with voluntary packages but I have a serious issue with involuntary layoffs where age is a factor. That's simply wrong and illegal.

infinity ag said:

---

harge57 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

Microsoft has had really good profits over the past 5 years (profits up ~100%) -- $101B 2025.

https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/microsoft-buyout-stock/2026/04/23/id/1253955/

Despite these profits, MS announced today it is cutting staff with buyouts. Combination of focus on younger staff as AI rolls out as well as reducing expenses to help pay for AI infrastructure.

Voluntary cuts are focused on older workers--Age plus Microsoft years >= 70. About 7% of employees are eligible.

I generally hate MS with a passion many would reserve for the IRS during tax season. Or Clippy, IE, Windows 8, and now Windows 11/copilot to name a few.

But this "golden handshake" is exactly the way letting go of employees should be handled by profitable corporations looking to reduce staff, imo.

2 words I have difficulty typing - "Good Microsoft"

---

That's all good if you have a retirement plan in place but the rule you are talking about is going to hit a lot of folks in their 50's who are going to have a rougher time finding a new job as companies want to hire younger people. It's "voluntary" which is fine but if I was at MS and in the "eligible" category I'd be nervous as hell if I wasn't sitting on a nice retirement nest egg already. I also expect they will be lucky not to get sued over this if they aren't very careful.

---

If someone has been at MSFT long enough to meet this rule of 70 and not sitting on a huge nest egg they did something seriously wrong.

---

You got many likes but bad take.
Not everyone is a Warren Buffett. Some people can only do a hard day's work and go home and they don't need to be treated like dispensable trash.

---

They don't have to be Warren buffet. They have been receiving at minimum 10s of thousands in MSFT stock for the last 15 to 20 years just in bonuses. That alone will make the vast majority of them multi millionaires.

aggie93 said:

---

tmaggie50 said:

---

I'm always torn on these things. People don't want government to give hand outs but they also want their companies to act like the government if they lay someone off by giving them a big bonus to go home.

Plan as though your job is not guaranteed tomorrow. Severance packages are a blessing, not a right. And companies aren't the government. You agree to work for a certain wage and neither party is obligated to do anything beyond that, however profitable they may have been during your tenure.

---

Don't disagree but this is a package designed to specifically go after people based on age as a significant reason for getting rid of them and not competence or work performance. This is about trying to get rid of older workers. So long as that stays voluntary and the packages are generous that's fine but there is a reason you can't just fire someone for how many candles are on their birthday cake.

---

I am not trying to argue and I understand your point. BUT, there is a pretty high correlation between time at a company/age and salary.

I suspect compensation is a much bigger factor than age.

I do think that they could be falling into the trope of old dogs and new tricks. If so, that WOULD be age discrimination.

Trajan88 said:

---

I am 60.

Worked for 23 years at my last co.

.I was canned in January due to a "reorganization" ... for all that dedicated work since 2002 I received 8 weeks severance pay and 8 weeks of healthcare. I asked for 1 week for ea. year of service. They would not acknowledge my correspondence until i signed off on their std. separation offer.

I planned on staying w/ themat co. until I hit 65 years of age.

Since early Feb., I have received only 3 hits with my resume/applications (I am sure all the others I have applied, those co's auto system sees my graduation date at "1989" ... and immediately flushes me).

I may be involuntarily "retired" ... but thankfully I am financially prepared.

My $0.02: screw private equity... they are the suck.

---

This happened to me after COVID. I know it's hard but stay positive and flexible to new roles and industries. Worked for me. I'm 55.

my company has done 2 VBO's in the past 10 years. It is awesome for those close to retirement. 3 weeks of pay for each year of service, full bonus even when working just half a year, full payout on unvested private company stock and 2 years of paid insurance. A lot of people were coming out of it with $200k to $300k or more and 2 years of insurance. a lot of them turned around and got another job...even in the same industry.

The last couple of years there were rumors another one was going to happen. There were a lot of people holding out for another one. I know several people that put in another one or two years to see if another one would happen.

If they do another one today, I'd jump on it, even with being 10 years away from retirement. This would be my first year to hit the 70 mark. I'd take a month or 2 off just to relax and recharge, and then back to the job hunt. Good thing I have been at my company for over 20 years a lot of our business customers like to pull from my current company.

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

I've seen this game before at Compaq and HP. The first rounds are voluntary, with decent payouts. The next rounds will not be so generous- and the one after that is marginal at best.

---

Yes. When my company offered voluntary packages like this I bit and took the package because I knew any potential later rounds would be less lucrative or a flat out layoff that you had no control over.

Sure enough there was no second round offer. They laid people off and everyone was shocked. I walked with one year total comp severance, banked all of it, and we lived off my wife's salary.

I'm surprised with those products they're even making that much money. But good on them though.

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

I've seen this game before at Compaq and HP. The first rounds are voluntary, with decent payouts. The next rounds will not be so generous- and the one after that is marginal at best.

---

That happened to my dad years ago with the power and energy company he worked for. They offered voluntary early retirement the first year with 90% retirement and insurance. In corporate speak, they said they could stick around and there was a possibility of a better package in two years.
My dad took the first round.
The guys that took the second choice got forced into retirement within 18 months and had significant reductions in insurance benefits.

This idea that corporate jobs are "safe" has always been and always will be ridiculous. Being an entrepreneur is much safer. 1) you generally have a multitude of bosses (clients) if one fires you there are others. (Disversification). 2) you have control and, for now, the freedom to adjust your business to take advantage of the market.

No management thinks beyond 1-3 years at most. They aren't concerned with the long term health of the company because short term numbers are what swings stock valuation day to day and quarter to quarter, and that's how they are compensated. They ware worried about only immediate numbers for the next few financial statements, and longer term problems are a much lower priority that will be dealt h with only as they become short term. This means labor expense to make numbers that investors require is a major consideration.

Blame McKinsey. They came up with executive LTIP compensation and peer comparisons.

It is outrageously ludicrous for companies earning billions (that's profit, not revenue) to lay off 1000s because they aren't "winning"' against their peers in a game with no finish line.

Trajan88 said:

---

I am 60.

Worked for 23 years at my last co.

.I was canned in January due to a "reorganization" ... for all that dedicated work since 2002 I received 8 weeks severance pay and 8 weeks of healthcare. I asked for 1 week for ea. year of service. They would not acknowledge my correspondence until i signed off on their std. separation offer.

I planned on staying w/ themat co. until I hit 65 years of age.

Since early Feb., I have received only 3 hits with my resume/applications (I am sure all the others I have applied, those co's auto system sees my graduation date at "1989" ... and immediately flushes me).

I may be involuntarily "retired" ... but thankfully I am financially prepared.

My $0.02: screw private equity... they are the suck.

---

I am 55 and voluntarily leaving my company after 6 full years and a 30 year legal career.

I didn't expect them to offer me anything.

I feel empathy for fellow human beings-

but what is the actual LEGAL and MORAL case that every employer has to pay 6 months of salary and benefits to all employees they are laying off?

in the history of america- if you lost your job in 1855 what happened to you?

If your over 50, brace yourself, it is extremely difficult to remake yourself, not impossible but the hiring world has changed dramatically. AI is stacked against you but also will help you.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

No management thinks beyond 1-3 years at most. They aren't concerned with the long term health of the company because short term numbers are what swings stock valuation day to day and quarter to quarter, and that's how they are compensated. They ware worried about only immediate numbers for the next few financial statements, and longer term problems are a much lower priority that will be dealt h with only as they become short term. This means labor expense to make numbers that investors require is a major consideration.

---

I firmly believe the best run companies in America are privately held. And I don't mean by private equity firms.

Quote:

---

I firmly believe the best run companies in America are privately held. And I don't mean by private equity firms.

---

Couldn't agree more. During my career, I worked for a couple of private companies, a couple of publicly traded companies, and one company owned by private equity. By far, the private companies were the best.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

No management thinks beyond 1-3 years at most. They aren't concerned with the long term health of the company because short term numbers are what swings stock valuation day to day and quarter to quarter, and that's how they are compensated. They ware worried about only immediate numbers for the next few financial statements, and longer term problems are a much lower priority that will be dealt h with only as they become short term. This means labor expense to make numbers that investors require is a major consideration.

---

Worst thing about our public company system is the quarterly earnings process. Most of us understand why we do it, but the downside of it is that companies have become completely beholden to it and it destroys strategic planning. Have shared this many times in the past but I had our entire division's strategic planning wiped from existence because of the reaction to one freaking analyst on an earnings call that didn't even directly impact our division. Totally absurd.