Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Reasonable to assume Saul has the self-awareness and self-survival skills to realize he needs to pivot and "re-brand" his Location Strategy at some point in time to somehow make it sound more reasonable and less bonkers— but I think it will come too late for Phase One impacted employees (i.e., 660 out of 24,000 or so staff). Saul and executives are hoping for a large number of voluntary quits – i.e., rejecting relocation offer.

To all Location Strategy Phase One Impacted Employees: Complain to Board of Directors and EthicsLine

Wells Fargo executives will ignore all pushback through the normal channels (I.e. HR, Accommodation Management, etc). There is no exception process. HR is going through all the motions of this "process" but the result will always be "exception denied."

Recommendation for those impacted by Phase One of Location Strategy ("Forced Relocation")
========================================================
1) email the the Board of Directors - boardcommunications@wellsfargo.com

2) report this incompetent and unethical conduct to EthicsLine: https://www.tnwgrc.com/wellsfargo/

Saul Van Beurden's inconsistent and contradictory messaging is unethical conduct. It is morally bankrupt, misleading and rapidly destroying morale during a crisis. His Location Strategy is detrimental and ignores pandemic threat. It has caused severe harm already by creating Reputational, Financial, Operational and Legal Risks for Wells Fargo.

====================================
Again, Wells Fargo executives will ignore all pushback through the normal channels: it would likely take an class action lawsuit and coordinated effort by all Phase One impacted employees to get their attention.- i.e., Phase One likely targeted and discriminated (illegally) against employees by age and perhaps by other protected criteria (e.g, ,disabililty). Proving discrimination and disparate impact is uphill battle. But in this case, the selection criteria and data model for Phase One look pretty shaky - pretty flimsy pretext for what it is obvious strategy to get experienced and older employees to quit.

Related "Ask Me Anything" thread: (https://www.thelayoff.com/t/141KT8k7)

"Location strategy will continue, even thought there is a setback from Saul's view. Also, if you have a special situation - sorry - go and look for another job if you cannot move.To the guys who ask that question because there is a very sick family member - get a lawyer and see what your options are."

They have spent a lot of time and money figuring out how to justify shuffling their most-passive workers to new cities, and telling Important People why that's the only way forward ... they can't go back now, at least not without having a new strategy for how to dump 70k workers.

How about if they offer early retirement to all staff over 50 who agree to self-quarantine for x time period, for the good of the country (and maybe they could write off the cost as a virus tax credit). Immediate promotion opportunities for remaining staff. (Everybody wins, culture change, great PR, improved morale, but potentially costly.)

OR Wells Fargo requires all technical staff to earn x new-skill credentials in order to keep their jobs. (Raise the bar. Many win. Least-motivated lose.)

OR transition 70k staff into 2-year contracts. Many lose, but more gently. Hey, it's supposed to be all about 2022.

It's easy to criticize any layoff, especially when it's based on a wacko ideology about "workspaces," rather than on output and effectiveness. But if they had to reduce headcount due to demands for increased automation and efficiency, how else should they consider doing it?

Re: 'We re going to sue Wells Fargo."

Large corporations sit back and laugh at you when you threaten to sue them because they know that all they have to do is keep appealing and wait you out until you run out of money for your lawyer.

They don't employ all those New York lawyers for no reason.

Saul literally said he thinks people sitting near each other and bumping elbows is a good thing.

He said that in March of 2020, during the virus outbreak.

The location strategy is clearly designed to get people to quit and save the bank money on severance, because no one is this stupid.

FYI, my team was told today the location strategy is on hold but still coming.

We have 18 months of this virus outbreak left, 14 months or more until we have a vaccine, so I think the "on hold" part is going to be more like 2 years.

I hope everyone is okay.

Board of Directors: "So your big Workplace Location strategy is to force people back into the office?"
Saul: " Yes, Agile requires it (or so people told me many years ago)."
Board of Directors: "Ahh, but you know we have a pandemic?"
Saul: "The six feet guidelines for social distancing will protect us. I am not only an Agile expert but a medical expert."
Board of Directors: "Well that's good enough for us –we've done our due diligence."

Lawyer: "I don't think so. We have proof that your employees are sick due to you force them to be in the office. We are going to sue Wells Fargo."

Board of Directors: "So your big Workplace Location strategy is to force people back into the office?"

Saul: " Yes, Agile requires it (or so people told me many years ago)."

Board of Directors: "Ahh, but you know we have a pandemic?"

Saul: "The six feet guidelines for social distancing will protect us. I am not only an Agile expert but a medical expert."

Board of Directors: "Well that's good enough for us –we've done our due diligence."

"They need to cut at least 70,000 team members. Period."

Then do it and be done with it. Put on your big person pants and make the decision and move on.

Agree that "Location Strategy" (aka "Forced Relocation") is basically for pretext for informal reduction-in-force that does not trigger statutory notices and thus saves money.

Also agree with the sentiment of solidarity by original poster- but strategy-wise it makes little sense to say "no" to the relocation offer. 600 "no" responses are what they are hoping for: Worst strategy would be to decline the offer- that's what they are hoping for (voluntary quit).

Best to wait this out. Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold. This is time to hold. Do not respond in any manner; if they have no responses yet as July 15 deadline approaches, I'm sure their messaging - if not the offer – may be re-evaluated.

Please understand that if you say "no" to relocating, you're doing exactly what they want you to do... resigning.

If you resign, they don't have to pay you severance or unemployment.

Don't think for a moment that they actually want you to relocate. They don't.

They need to cut at least 70,000 team members. Period.

Those of us in upper mgt are being told to do everything possible to get employees to quit. It's awful, but the company sees it as necessary for any chance of survival.

The Wall Street Journal on 3/11 quoted CEO as saying “he is putting in place a new management structure that increases oversight of each business line.”

Guess what that strategy is folks? Flattening the organization and that my friends means massive management layoffs. You’ll see.

A lit of people I know in Iowa are not being given the ok to work from home. So WF is putting themselves first again.. Imagine that.

If anything this pandemic will demonstrate the continued importance of digital payments, contactless technology and voice/AI.

Another 50000+ are probably going to be laid off with or without the virus, because the company has its own cultural infection.

This pandemic will blow over. Probably not soon. Definitely not without all kinds of pain. But it will, and when it does it will be back to business as usual, with working from home part of a disaster plan, not a full time thing.

@yaw+13Z67dzM - Unfortunately - that is true also. In that case, we will really see Saul for who he is - a cunning wolf in sheep's cover.

Those AMA webcasts are just a way to cozy up to the IT community before the axe swings - I am sure you know what that means.

This pandemic is the perfect excuse to lay-off more people.