Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

But why do any of the things OP listed when you can force a move knowing a large % of them will not take it. Have their cake and eat it too! Location Strategy?!? + & = Undercover headcount reduction. win win for the exec bonuses.

Corporations in America are required buy law to put profit and shareholders first, otherwise they can be sued by their shareholders.

Sending jobs overseas saves money and increases profits, so it's required that Wells send jobs overseas.

It is not immoral or unethical and it is not un-American, since American law requires this.

If you don't like it, learn more and vote better.

Don't be a s—er and take the relocation. Imagine relocating your life and then losing your job some time after you move.

I think they are banking on this: people not taking the relocation and simply quitting.

Where have you been? This has been going on for 20 years.. It is just going on a lot more now because of excessive unchecked corporate greed. JPMC started a couple years ago MANDATING 70% offshore development. Given that all the new WF people come from there, anyone knows what's coming. Globalization is the old story, this is something more insidious.

Globalization is globalization... this is coming to the banking industry late following many other industries such as electronics where globalization started in the 60's and early 70's. We must accept this and help ourselves and children to avoid this as best as possible. Automation is the next big thing.

Any American company who sends jobs to India is not ethical. ANY of them. Unfortunately that includes most of them since they are taught in MBA school to do it now.

The goal on the tech side is to get jobs to India as cheaply as possible... this is the trend across companies. The poor manner in which WF is doing it separates the company from the ethical ones.

1 day off per week is a 20% reduction in salary with no reduction in work. Yeah, that will work

1and 3 are the same thing for salaried employees. The likely outcome would be that the best people leave for greener pastures. They have already implemented mandatory furloughs for contractors.

This strategy is very odd, it doesn’t seem to have a clear objective.

seem like the execs are only looking to make a buck, have no ingenious ideas or experience; I think they need to do another exec replacement strategy, find people who are qualified and less of them to help the company with their financial situation

We have a multitude of lifers in the CISO org. 20, 30, and 40 year employees who have been able to weasel their way around for that long while screwing over anyone in their path. Will be nice to see some of them gone when our location strategy exception expires this year.

what's unusual is that some people did volunteer to relocate, or asked to relocate to a city where their team members were actually located - both groups were told no.

it sounds like this is definitely a targeted relocation in the US, giving no flexibility or choice to those asked to relocate.