Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Two things to know (I’ve worked for Wells Fargo since 2008, been in the industry longer than I care to admit 😉.)

1. Wells Fargo’s practices and policies are always to give the “illusion” of fairness, equality, regulatory compliance, ethics, doing what’s right for the customer, etc. They talk the talk, but never walk the walk.

2. Beneath the surface: it is greed, pressure to cut costs even if it means not doing it right, under-the-table dealings, looking the other way, keeping your mouth shut, no tracking of questionable activities, “don’t put it in writing” etc.

They make the employees sign on the dotted line that we are following all the “on the surface” policies and procedures, even when our management knows it’s not the reality. Then when the bank gets caught with their hand in the till, they blame the employees and the C-Suite claims innocence.

Yes, sometimes you were not allowed to promote someone in place. You had to create a new req for that person, have them ‘apply’, and then ‘hope’ they interviewed good enough to get the position. Stupid system, should have just allowed managers to promote people.

One of youtube comments says:

When I worked for WF it was an unwritten rule that the regional manager already filled job openings and we would have to ask around if it was a "real" open position. I remember being the most qualified for a role and being told that the other person had been waiting longer as the only reason they got the role. Hearing what you said they must have falsified my interview guide to reflect a lower score. I also whistle blew on the fake account scandal to the Charlotte Observer and got flown out to WF, NC HQ hub and out of all the execs in the meeting Steve Bond, head of compensation for Wells Fargo defended and obfuscated issues the most. Thats when I knew that the top would never change their warped perspective and how all the changes would not change the culture.

@1fwp, unfortunately it happens. HR used to require that 3 people be interviewed for each position. Many managers already knew who they were going to hire but had to interview others to meet that requirement. I think it’s okay to have a bench for a position and I think if you already know who you’re going to hire just hire them and don’t waste everyone else’s time. But Wells Fargo doesn’t allow that. In my mind just giving someone the position is better than having people interview who will never get the job because it’s essentially already filled. Many hiring managers are going through the motions solely to meet an HR requirement.

Another shady practice is writing the job requirements so that only the candidate you plan to hire can meet them. And then when no one else meets the requirements change them just enough to get the HR required number of candidates to interview. Then interview them just so you have the paperwork to say it was a fair selection process.

@1pmo I agree with that but he specifically said that isn’t the scenario he is talking about. I’m having a hard time understanding this fake interview process being alleged. How does anyone KNOW these are fake vs. they gave everyone a shot and went with the most qualified? I agree it’s possible it’s happening but I don’t see the “proof” even alleged proof. If it’s true, it’s wrong.

I don’t understand. Shouldn’t a leader have contingency plans and a bench? If someone leaves and you need to replace their job, you should already have someone in mind. What the heck is the problem.