Heard rumors that a few Grade 16 or higher roles without direct reports will be impacted due to re org and low level roles will be created to fill same positions for cost saving
Can anyone confirm if this is true?
19 replies (most recent on top)
@295 I agree completely. Being a manager of people isn't the only highly valuable skill.
"There are some 16’s on my team who do not have directs. How long that’ll last idk. To some degree it makes sense - if we’re paying someone ~200k makes sense they have ppl reporting to them right?!"
Comments like this show a lack of business acumen. Having direct reports doesn't equate to value delivered.
Millions can be saved in toss but cutting the dead wood at 15 and above. Nothing would be lost.
It sure would be nice to eliminate some of the 16th levels within risk as the only risk is having them here, they haven’t either no direct reports, a couple of them and nonetheless add no value. There’s a cost save right there across the board.
Time for a lesson. Total comp equals base pay, bonuses and equity
Total rewards equals total comp plus benefits.
Total comp for gr16 in geo c is 200k at midpoint.
@ew average midpoint for a 16 is right about 150k. AIP bonus target is 25% and LTI target is 14K - Simple math says that’s just a shade over 200k without anything else added in. Math isn’t that hard.
@ew+1keg4gk2a when you log into Total Rewards, it very clearly states Pay, Incentives, Savings and Retirement and Health Insurance in the Total Comp calculation, so definitely possible for a 16 to 'cost' the bank over $200k.
From what I've seen over the years, the PG17 have definitely been targeted for layoffs more so than 16's, but perhaps 2026 is the year they take cuts a level deeper.
@dt when has 401k matching been used to state salary should we also include the cost of the coffee they drink?
@cx total comp with bonuses, 401k matches, etc can easily put a Grade 16 over $200k.
Alot of 16s and middle/upper management should be cut especially in overinflated compliance and risk roles. These mid managers inflated their importance and needing employees to "secure" their position. Never was it questioned and should have been because its a complete waste of $$$ putting useless bodies in positions to produce nothing but
slap your name on someone elses work or perform duplicative work (risk managers). You could do more with less bodies in risk and compliance roles. Save the company money by eliminating the overpaid bloat.
Hope it’s true. There are far too many over paid people working for this bank. It doesn’t make sense That we’re cutting grade 7-10’s (the ones who actually do the work) when we could be saving much more by cutting the over paid, over titled
@c6 200k hahaha, you have no idea what you are talking about
Curious, are you a remote employee?
@c6 Which org are you in where they're paying Gr 16s $200k?!
@OP it’s a loosely followed unwritten rule. There are some 16’s on my team who do not have directs. How long that’ll last idk. To some degree it makes sense - if we’re paying someone ~200k makes sense they have ppl reporting to them right?!
I don’t know if this was part of what you’re hearing in terms of an enterprise wide strategy, but I do know someone this happened to, exactly to a T, back in November.
Banking is kaput. All done online
This always been the rule for the longest time - this is why managers are desperate to have people working underneath them.
I haven't heard anything, what line are you in?
It wouldn't shock me at this point though. Anything they can do to CUT COSTS! Since that's all this company cares about anymore.