Just an FYI, Charlie is thinking about running background checks on internal staff sometime in 2020. The goal is to try to reduce liability and discrepancy between an employee’s company profile, and actual qualifications/educational background. So if your profile says you earned a bachelors from UC Berkeley, but your actual background check says that your degree is from university of Phoenix, then you could be targeted for dismissal.
19 replies (most recent on top)
I agree a lot of unscrupulous people are hiding . Anyone who is totally remote can easily play a game and remain underground for a long time.
They need to dig. There is individual working here who was previously terminated from another bank for routinely fudging a group's audit/metric numbers because person was buddies with the manager overseeing that area. Person has friend here on the inside who vouched to the hiring manager. They never bothered checking person's employment at the other bank.
Nice try, @12o6kcpH-half . The ORM team was strengthened due to frauds, shenanigans and other misdemeanors. These are the good guys and are trying to fight the unscrupulous players . Their hiring was necessary and dictated by the regulators. If only the second and third line functions had been awake you do need such an extensive first line.
Seems like the background checks must have issues. But Charlie is missing something bigger. WF has hired a lot of Folks over the past 4-6 years in roles like ORM Tech Risk who are just bad managers regardless of their degrees or knowledge. The recent “departure “ of the Tech Risk Exec is just the tip of the iceberg of bad management, his whole team should go.
Can I at least get my RSR’s first!!!! 😂
I would only formally report a manager for a specific violation of a specific company policy that had some kind of written documentation. Toxic can mean anything. I had an id–t for a manager and I considered him toxic for a variety of reasons. So did my teammates. I took a new job, they are all still there. Trying to report him would not have worked out for me, I can’t imagine how my former teammates continue to deal with him, but leaving benefitted me greatly with a bigger salary and much better manager.
Report your legitimate concerns (without emotion) using the eForm. Print out emails to PDF, as well as meeting invites to PDF (to show invitees).. Include as much documentation you can that supports your case.
In light of the OCC MRA for HR....
Never forget. The person who BRINGS the problem IS the problem. Always. No exceptions.
If you bring a complaint against a manager you are a complainer. It will blow back on you. Nothing will happen to the manager. Your only option is to get out one way or another.
I have this same question. How to report a bad manager?
I've been moved to a very toxic team, with a very bad manager.
My research says there is no good way to complain about a manager and to get a new job.
Anyone have experience here with filing employee relations complaint on toxic manager and if the complaint (eform) will result in anything?
Of course, they are trying to avoid paying severance and unemployment. It's obvious.
This is one of many tactics to do that. Others are much more underhanded (PIPing and papering TMs out the door) and have been going on for quite some time.
When you're about to let go 26,000 people, you pull out all the stops to avoid payouts. Soon to come, changing severance to only one week (vs. two) per year of service. That should also shake some people loose (natural attrition).
This company is circling the drain and business unit selloffs are inevitable.
How many employees would pass a d–g test??
Troll!!!! This is likely posted by an HR Troll to distract from the HR scandal. Stay focused on HR.
If they want to cut people they don’t need a reason. Layoffs are layoffs.
Unless they’re trying to avoid paying severance and unemployment.
Which sounds like something they would do.
While I have no clue what the top people are thinking, I have heard this tactic at other large employers. It’s easy to fire someone who has had a new criminal charge on their record that now disqualifies them from employment. AT&T did this in the 90’s and laid off thousands.
Considering the mess HR is already in, it doesn’t seem like a good idea to have them do anything else. The outcome of this would definitely be a big deal to HR and Legal. Unless you lied about a qualification required by your job, I fail to see what this achieves. In my experience very few jobs at Wells Fargo require many specifics. They would want to fix that first, then determine if the people in those jobs are qualified. That might accomplish something useful. Fine by me if they want to verify my credentials.
That does seem excessive. People go through extensive background checks when they are hired. How does the OP know what Charlie is thinking? Do I smell a troll?
Background checks on 250,000 people? Nice contract. I wonder which one of his buddies will get it.
That is great. I studies certificate course in university of Phoenix in English speaking. So, good to rite the certification as bachelors in computer?