Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Remember that change in mid year performance review to include a rating? Paying severance isn't as issue when you can just fire those folks that got a 1 or 2 on their performance review. They no longer qualify for a severance package. And guess when your managers must have the rating for year end ready? The beginning of October.

@epm+1770Mbvl

If they are my parents age then they should have been out of here in 2008-2010. I'm 50 so I've been around the block and have less than 1 year here.

I never said these long-timers didn't contribute. It's right in my post.

I said it's the long-timers that don't give a sh– anymore. Maybe I should have said it's all the people that don't give a sh– anymore that are dragging us down.

My point is they should keep the people that want to be here and want to work to bring us into the future. Those waiting for packages need to go. Offering up voluntary buyouts or what ever you want to call it get's rid of the people that want out.

Frankly, I've resigned myself to the fact that I will be laid off as I am one of the more expensive people on my team and will only get 8 weeks of severance. Though I am energized and more importantly not ingrained into the bureaucratic snails pace by which we work. I used to doing 3x the work I am now. I should be kept and those that bloviate their way through the job need to go.

Putting a real - life example out there. I came from an organization that is going through aggressive layoffs. I worked with a gem of an older woman who worked well past retirement age. Through unfortunate events she and her husband were raising their grandchildren. Imagine that: in your 50’s and 60s, raising 3 young kids. She has gotten to an age now where she is ready to go, her husband is having health issues. She has not been able to save as much as she would have liked to. When she heard about layoffs, she put a bug in her manager’s ear that she would happily take a severance. Better her than the young hard-working fathers on the same team.

They have passed her over twice. She said she thinks there are 2 problems. One, she should have never spoken up. Two, they are afraid of ageism.

As a long-timer, I take offense at being told I should move on just because of my tenure. Some may skate by, but to bucket us all into one category is unfair.

PS: It also comes across as nothing more than ageist.

@ymi: Not sure why all the anger. Direct it at leadership, if you need to, but not the long-term employees who have worked hard through the years. I’m guessing they are about the same age as your parents, and I’m betting you wouldn’t want some younger punk talking to them with such disrespect.

Your suggestion about offering a 50% voluntary package to those who want to go is a good suggestion. Boeing has been doing this for years. Too bad it gets lost in your delivery.

As others have said, they had to pay Charlie this insane comp because the changes he makes are not going to be popular with anyone, hence, this is likely his last job before retirement.

As OP stated, no one wanted the job because they knew what would have to be done and would likely ruin their reputation making them no longer hirable elsewhere.

Again, if you want to blame anyone, blame the board of directors.

Stupidest thing they could do is think make decision based on severance amounts. It's the long timers that don't give a sh– anymore that are sinking the ship.

Not saying all long timers are in this boat but a good portion are.

Anyone asking for a package should be given the option to take it at 50% of it's value.

The cost of severance packages is absolutely taken in to consideration. If I only have to pay Employee 1 severance for 2 months: I begin to show a positive financial return in 2 months. If I have to pay Employee 2 for 12 months: it will be a full year before I can see the benefit. Additionally, Wells Fargo reduced the max payout from 16 months to 12 months several years back, so it is a concern.

This is not a conversation between young and old, it is a conversation about length of service. Last year, in our LOB, they laid off a GREAT 52 year old new employee who had only been on the team for a year. And they kept a 35 year old “bad apple” who had been at the firm for 12 years. Our manager tried to fight HR on the decision and it 100% boiled down to length of service.

And yes, I have heard about conversations around the wisdom of paying a severance to someone approaching retirement age.

Having said that, there are many other factors at play. Foremost, they have to find the balance on age s-x and race to prevent lawsuits.

Ultimately, there will be employees who want a package and will not get one, along with employees who want to stay and will be shown the door. Ironic indeed.

Just follow the money.

@pnn: Your message will be better received if presented objectively and you show respect for other people’s viewpoints. If your goal is to raise the level of the conversation, you have to begin with yourself.

I understand the fears of layoffs. I have been there. I am in fear myself but the constant tearing down the company that you still collect a paycheck from and tearing down others who want to stay doesn't help and the person who agreed with me, no, we are not the same person.

@dgk: Same question to you: For what purposes are you on this website?

You are not carrying yourself in a way that helps either management or employees.

@frg: For what purposes are you on this website?!
I like my job too, but I come out here to offer helpful information and support to those who are naturally struggling through mass layoffs.

I am a manage, fairly high up. If you think you are supporting Wells Fargo’s management team, you are not.

@dfk and @frg are the same person , FYI. Only one
person out here who gets her kicks out of being self righteous and holier-than-though.

Last in first out makes sense to me. More than likely the employee brought in last year was brought in at market rate thus making the same amount as the employee who has been here 20+ years this if I am looking to truly cut costs then you layoffs the newer employee giving them 8 weeks severance versus the older employee at 40+ weeks severance.

i agree with this last post. tons of miserable people on here.

@sux still a dirty company? sounds like you need to start raising your hand or hands. I have never seen anything that was intentional or nefarious and I have high visibility into lots of different lines. I see stupidity. I see inefficiency. I dont see dirty dealings. If you dont do something then you are part of the problem and need to find something else to do. WF doesnt need or want you, if you dont

You all are so miserable. I'm glad I don't interact with you personally.
On the scary side, I'lll bet you'll still be here two years from now still griping and b–ching while others will have moved on whether by force or choice.
Every company has a load of moaners who have been there for years and yet go no where.

Reducing severance isn’t particularly risky. It’s actually already been at the bank about three years ago.

Do you really think people who would have gotten one year and instead get 6 months are going to walk away from that just so they can do what? Complain to the press?

The public won’t have much sympathy for big severance packages, and the press is very occupied with the political circus.

Charlie was hired on a 5 year contract so of course he's a short timer. Incentive for the potential of greater profitability by cleaning up the bank once the asset cap is lifted is built into his contract.

@fhc That's not how unemployment works. Wells has ALREADY paid UEI. They pay the tax on your first $6-8k.

The OP is correct. To the poster who said they can reduce or eliminate severance. Yes, of course they can but that comes with major risks. The severance package is to keep you quiet. Without severance a lot more will come out. It’s still a dirty company.

@fhc:

1) Agree with you this is Charlie’s last stand. Agree with OP that he is a short-timer.

2) Agree with you that this is whole new ballgame. Questioning your statement about terminating longtimers. Pretty sure this is your opinion or your hopes, not really rooted in any facts, right? Be honest.

3) Agree with you.

1) This is Charlie's last stand. He's a multi millionaire (thus, the reason for his perpetual smug smirk).

2) This is a whole new ballgame, not like other rounds of layoffs in the past. Longtimers, you are NOT safe. In fact, they are looking for any reason – no matter how minuscule – to TERMINATE YOU FOR CAUSE. No severance, no unemployment insurance. And they will find it. Win-win for the company.

3) Severance can also be eliminated across the board or significantly reduced AT ANY TIME. For instance, 1 week for every 3 years of service....or no weeks at all.

I'm amazed at how few people understand what's really happening. It's sad.

Charlie will be here for a couple years, decide he can’t fix it even after all the layoffs. Jamie Dimon will retire in a couple of years and Charlie goes back home to JPMC.

OP speaking the truth regarding how Wells handled layoffs in summer 2019. At least that is how it was handled in my LOB, and that is how HR explained it to our Managing Director: newer employees went first to save money on the severance packages, irregardless of a manager’s input.

Can’t say, obviously, how it will go down this time. I don’t agree with their methods, but if you think you know how Wells Fargo is going to proceed on any decision: stick around for awhile and watch them in action. You will end up scratching your head.

The Board couldn’t get who they wanted. Charlie wasn’t even on the original list. All the leaders whom the Board thought would be the right fit said no. Even Charlie turned the job down originally. He eventually negotiated a 40% increase (from Sloan) and they said yes. Not because he was their first or even their 8th choice-he was their only remaining option.

I, obviously, don’t have a crystal ball, am just putting 2 and 2 together and coming up at 4.

Again, go look at the Forbes list of the actions of a CEO who is engaged vs a CEO who is disengaged.
If you still think he’s staying: I want you to come back here and list which of the “10 Signs Your CEO is a Loser” do not apply to Charlie.

Wells isn't playing chicken with long term employees. I really wonder where some of the posts on this site come from.

Not sure why they needed to hire a 36 Mill dollar Hatchett Man. If that’s the case, then a Monkey could do his job. Plugin a few formulas into an algorithm and w a l l aa. I think he will stay as long as needed for his options to fully vast which might take a few years before the fair well. By that time he ll be near 60 and probably will be his last stop.

If you are paying any attention to his management style here, he is not sticking around. He is the $36,000,000 hatchet man. Maybe this is his last gig? Don’t know what his future plans are, but look at the Forbes posts from earlier today. He shows zero interest in any leadership here. He doesn’t even try to fake it.

Where is Charlie going to move onto. There is only one bigger job in banking and that’s JPM. Unlikely that happens.