Wells Fargo is not legally obligated to pay any of us a penny in severance...and they could decide at any time to no longer do so. No union to obligate them contractually or legal reason to do so...just wait for no more severance pay to be part of the 10 billion in saved expense.
14 replies (most recent on top)
The original poster has provided an incredibly valuable heads up. It you work for WF you need to consider how you can possibly sever that dependence. I’ve seen Charlie in action. We all NEED to understand our dependency on Wells and how we can sever it.
They are less concerned about reputational damage now than they were a few years ago.
I was in a meeting and an executive made this very point. To paraphrase his words, "reputational issues are less of a consideration now than in prior years".
Why expend effort (and MONEY!) to protect a good reputation when you don't HAVE a good reputation to begin with?
They'll pay because they don't want the lawsuits and the negative attention it will bring. Otherwise, you are right. They are in NO WAY obligated to pay anyone's severance pay.
OK captain not so obvious!
This just might be the most idi0tic comment I've seen so far.....
ok maybe not, but i am ok with 1.2 million if affected
I’m not a fan of Wells Fargo’s C-Suite decisions in any way, but I do try to be reasonably responsible with my posts, responses and opinions. I’m glad to see others are intelligently neutralizing this post.
I'm sure the strategy is to keep decreasing the overall payout while increasing the number of conditions that must be satisfied – i.e., slowly boiling the frog.
While what you say is true, and I'm sure a few companies have done it, the only one I can remember is Gymboree. They were retail and bankrupt, though, without any real hope of righting the ship. So the executives took the money and ran. They got incredibly bad press for it. Of course they weren't regulated and didn't have DC and state politicians all over them like white on rice. So I highly doubt that would happen at WF.
I see folks on this site talking the generous severance at Wells. It used to be a lot larger for many of us, and the company quietly scaled it back a few year ago. I wouldn't be shocked if they did it again sometime next year. Mine was cut nearly in half. Despite the reductions they've already carried out, Wells Fargo's severance is still decent compared to companies in other industries. It's probably on-par at worst for big banks. I just wouldn't assume it'll remain that way once this year's layoffs are complete.
OP, what's your point in posting this? Posting something that is very unlikely to get already stressed people more so.
The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 is a US labor law which protects employees, their families, and communities by requiring most employers with 100 or more employees to provide 60 calendar-day advance notification of plant closings and mass layoffs of employees, as defined in the Act.
One top of that, they have paid it throughout the lay-off process. No worries, they will pay the severance despite the rhetoric.
No severance = high turnover
Sounds like it is time to break out the tin foil hats!
I don’t think they will go this far. It will cause them more pain with a flood of lawsuits.