Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

For those who support our CEO’s hiring behavior because they mistakenly think it won’t affect them:

I’m piggybacking on to a comment from a thread earlier today. It raises some points that explain part of my negative gut reaction to Charlie. And the majority of Wells Fargo’s employees should be paying very close attention to this behavior. Some 260,000 of us. Because it will affect nearly every one of you. Charlie has made it abundantly clear through his actions that he is bias against existing Wells Fargo employees. If you’ve worked here for over a year, he thinks you are not worthy of consideration for the best jobs at the bank. And probably no job at the bank.

He is only hiring from the outside. No promoting from within. He not only thinks “there is a very limited pool of black talent.” He also thinks “there is a very limited pool of talent within Wells Fargo.”

Cleaning house at the top, where problems originated and perpetuated, is explainable. But it does not mean there isn’t talent in the lower ranks who deserve to be looked at for promotion. The fact is that there are a lot of good, honest talented employees at the bank who didn’t get a chance to move up the corporate ladder specifically because we dared question previous management and because WE WERE NOT YES-MEN. While some were glad-handing the bosses, many of us were still trying to do the right thing despite all the many bungled decisions. Someone on a previous thread was defending the qualifications of the new outside hire for Diversity and Inclusion. Was there an employee already here with the same strengths? It doesn’t matter because Charlie is only looking to the outside. If you think this won’t affect you, then you are either naive or you are not paying attention.

Charlie has been very dismissive and non-communicative to employees. The Townhall last week was a farce. He is arrogant and disrespectful. He couldn’t be any more obvious that HE WANTS YOU OUT if you were not hired by him or one of his handpicks.

The point I’m attempting to make is that a pattern of bias behavior eventually affects everyone. Today it might be a woman, tomorrow it might be a black man, the next day it might be a white man, and the day after that it might be anyone who doesn’t belong to the Country Club. I would argue Charlie is biased against ALL of us for the very simple crime of being hired by Wells Fargo prior to October 21, 2019.

So stand up for the guy/gal/black/white/senior/g–/disabled, etc co-worker who wasn’t considered for a job promotion today, because chances are pretty good that tomorrow it will be you.

by
| 4238 views | | 24 replies (last November 4, 2020) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+17K2xZKG

24 replies (most recent on top)

Post ID: @1ltk+17K2xZKG

The first post you mention is me - the other two are not. Not sure what to tell you.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1sml+17K2xZKG

To Post ID: @1tjl+17K2xZKG from Post ID: @1nib+17K2xZKG

Yes- I would prefer you take it to an “I love Wells Fargo” site instead of stirring things up on this Lay-off site for no valid reason that I can think of.

But it has a lot to do with your patronizing tone. Actually, Post ID: @fno+17K2xZKG isn’t bad. But Post ID: @lct+17K2xZKG is condescending.

  1. Stating that anyone at WFC has questionable skills/abilities/track record and therefor would only be promoted to a top role “for the sake of it”.
  2. Stating “So far I’ve seen a lot of complaining on this forum but no real example of an internal candidate that was superior to the key external hires.” A. Calling people on a Lay-off board “complainers”. B. Faulty reasoning -I don’t have access to the credentials of all 270,000 employees. And neither do you. So you come across as argumentative and condescending. If your intention is to be a person who can change people’s POV, or defend Charlies’s decisions, than you would be better if you improved your communication skills.
by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ltk+17K2xZKG

@1tjl+17K2xZKG I'm calling BS on you know you're being dismissed 11/17. Corporate communications needs to come up with a better story.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1but+17K2xZKG

So anyone who says anything positive about anything is inappropriate because only negative commentary is acceptable?

I'm actually on the list for 11/17 but whoever took the top job needed to get cost either way out so I don't see much point in looking for people to blame.

I'll leave it to you self appointed guardians of Charlie bashing to do your thing.

Enjoy

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1tjl+17K2xZKG

Agreed. People certainly have a right to say what they think, but they should pick the appropriate forum. For example, I enjoy working out, but I don’t go out on Body Positive websites and try to shame people for not being at their perfect weight. That is just being condescending, not really adding value.

This is a Board for employees who are anxious about layoffs and question the leadership around decisions that potentially impact the stability of Wells Fargo and our jobs. Anyone who comes out here to stand up for Charlie and the Board is just amping up the rhetoric. Not sure what value you think you are adding.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1nib+17K2xZKG

Well good thing you’re not 10 years old, yet you are telling people to GFY? The people who support Charlie always have some underlying anger that comes through in their replies. I think he’s a big boy and doesn’t need or want people to stand up for him. All you’re really doing is adding to the conflict. If you stop and think about it, you’re not helping him (or anyone - not even yourself) at all.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1eua+17K2xZKG

Post ID: @1cij+17K2xZKG

Give it a break already. I have no issues yet with Charlie other than part of his job is not only to have a vision for the company but to communicate that vision down through the ranks which he could certainly do better at.

Given that I'm not 10 years old, I don't care who upvotes or downvotes any comment I make. If people don't agree, so what. It's a public forum. I get that you're trolling and feeding trolls is never wise but do me a favor and GFY.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1qax+17K2xZKG

Jumping on the bandwagon about the same person potentially agreeing with their own response.

Anonymous board, few rules, so I guess anything goes if someone is determined to persuade people they are correct and everyone else is wrong. I thought there was a possibility they were from the same person, just because they both took nearly the exact opposing stance. Or two people working together to attempt to change the narrative.

It is somewhat interesting both replies stand out for receiving nearly the same number of sum total negative responses, meaning most people felt some similarity in the message.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1cij+17K2xZKG

Laughing at @hjb+17K2xZKG

I wrote Post ID: @fno+17K2xZKG but I did not write Post ID: @lct+

So they are not from the same person.

You are so arrogantly clueless.... typical!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1geb+17K2xZKG

Post ID: @rla+17K2xZKG

I can live with that too. But judging from the numerous downticks you routinely get, not very many people agree with you and you #2.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @vkn+17K2xZKG

Post ID: @iti+17K2xZKG

If not agreeing with you makes me a troll, I can live with that.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rla+17K2xZKG

Post ID: @les+17K2xZKG

It is not me that is the troll. You, for some reason, get jazzed about defending Charlie and standing up against negative posts. And unless you have a twin sister, who grew up in the same house, who also works at Wells Fargo and just happens to always agree with you 100%: it is you who is the troll. Sorry.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @iti+17K2xZKG

why is head of risk and ciso still here? both have failed miserably in my opinion.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gwg+17K2xZKG

Post ID: @hjb+17K2xZKG

You accused me of the same thing a couple of weeks ago and were dead wrong. Just face it, you're trolling.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @les+17K2xZKG

All of the conflict could be eliminated if we had a CEO who communicated and engaged with his employees. A good leader gets everyone on the same page. A good leader communicates his strategy. A good leader would explain his reasons for only hiring from the outside, if he cares about employee morale. A good leader can rally his employees behind him. A good leader values and respects the people who work for him. A good leader doesn’t need to deploy a dubious response from “someone who quit Wells a few months ago” yet still (surprisingly!) supports him. A good leader does not create internal conflict and destroy employee morale. The negativity is not the failings of the employees. The conflict and dissent is the result of an arrogant divisive and evasive leader at the top.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @vqk+17K2xZKG

@wrg+17K2xZKG you're talking about both sides of your mouth. You say "So, what I would like to see from the anti-CS folks is... where do you propose cutting?" but don't address CS making up positions and posting his friends and family in them. You're posting is so duplicitous, I seriously doubt that you left the bank. This has the feel of a corporate communication posting.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @qbq+17K2xZKG

I agree that removing senior people and replacing them with external candidates brings a different approach with less character stain from a regulatory perspective. However that absolutely did not need to include creating dozens of multimillion dollar paychecks with “dotted line” responsibilities and in some cases completely fake roles.

The asset cap is critical, so again I ask... what’s the plan? It’s been three years total and one with Scharf... what’s the plan?

Investors don’t think there is one, so that’s the reason for the stock price.

What else has been done besides renaming team members, messing up the 401k and reorganizing the company to create a HUGE operating committee?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @tib+17K2xZKG

Take it for what its worth. The regulators wouldn't tolerate an internal person being promoted to any of the senior positions. All of them that are even remotely qualified, would have been scrutinized and rejected as tainted. Yes, all of the OC members have to be reviewed and approved by the regulators to take on an executive position. It was an inevitability that the executive leaders were going to be replaced with external hires one way or another.

Charlie and co are correct in saying that the expense side of this company is too high. True, the regulators and their actions have caused a lot of hiring in risk, compliance, control, etc. WIth the asset cap, the revenue isn't going to magically skyrocket so the expenses actually have to come down. Who knows when the asset cap will be lifted and that is squarely on the previously leadership for being unable to get us out of it. So, what I would like to see from the anti-CS folks is... where do you propose cutting? Of course, that's assuming that you agree that cuts need to be made.

Good people will be lost. No doubt. That always happens. That happened during the financial crisis and many crisis' before that. Folks can complain about the regulators and the MRAs but those are on the company, the previous management, and as another pointed out, there was really little progress being made towards truly getting out of the ditch - just digging further in. I view this as an inevitability.

While many came from JPM, BAC, C, and CapOne, note that all of those companies are deemed as being well run. Like it or not. They have all had their problems but nothing compared to the extent that Wells has. Sure, poke holes like they all took money during the financial crisis. This leadership is clearly are going towards the same approach that worked for them at those previous companies. All of those companies efficiency is not just a little bit better, but A LOT better. Over the last 5 years, I've seen our efficiency get even worse so up until now, we have not been trending in the right direction.

Admittedly, it is a hard environment with this overhang. Everyone needs to trust their gut and make the decision that is right for them. As such, I left Wells a few months ago before this really got heated but have a number of great, talented friends still over there. Always have a "plan b", as they say. I wish them and you all the best.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @wrg+17K2xZKG

Laughing at replies from Post ID: @fno+17K2xZKG and Post ID: @lct+

Both are from the same person. Similar writing style, so it’s easy to spot.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hjb+17K2xZKG

I agree with @fno+17K2xZKG. Well said.

It’s better to hire from outside someone that has the qualifications than promote internally for the sake of it and pick choices that have questionable skills/abilities/track records.

The best candidate should be hired period. So far I’ve seen a lot of complaining on this forum but no real example of an internal candidate that was superior to the key external hires. Quite the opposite, we recently saw posts about two internal promotions: one a lawyer with zero testing experience promoted to run Enterprise Testing and another a guy with no college degree ex-furniture salesman promoted to tech senior executive under the CISO. Both were internal hires. Are you all saying these two were the most qualified candidates available in the pool? Seriously????

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @lct+17K2xZKG

Honestly, I’m glad he’s hiring a bunch of outsiders for key positions. This is long overdue and should have been done 5 years ago when the scandalS were first starting to come to light.

The culture at Wells Fargo has been incestuous, and has created the culture of corruption and incompetence that has existed for a long time at the bank. I welcome all the outsiders. If anything it’ll help us save face with regulators, and help weed out some folks who feel entitled to promotions.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @fno+17K2xZKG

As far as all the newly created roles and executive new hires, it does make you wonder who is minding the store. Literally, is anyone minding the store???? Is the Board paying any attention??? Seems like we are trying to save money in one till, only to spend it freely out of the other. Spending dollars to save pennies. I’m no Johns Hopkins graduate, but .... ???

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @zkh+17K2xZKG

I'll stand up for anyone except that d-bag CEO of ours. He has driven the stock into the ground and not shown any real plan to bring it back. He speaks like a 6th grader and shows no confidence. All he shows is arrogance and an I'm better than you attitude. I honestly wanted to finish my career with Wells before this guy took over. Just like every other company there are bad apples among us but it is a small subset of the great people that are here. Sadly this man has turned me into one of those that hopes for the layoff package. There are a lot more than me that feel the same and they are not the ones who had anything to do with the scandals. Charlie is not the guy for the job, period.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ohm+17K2xZKG

You said it perfectly bubba

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @sxq+17K2xZKG

Post a reply

: