Although forced Performance ranking is not unlawful, it is fraught with legal risk. In 2016, a Yahoo employee brought a lawsuit against the company and proved that it disparately yanked older men (aka more highly paid) and was used not to drive better performance but as a financial expense reduction method. Yahoo has since backed away from forced ranking. There have been other instances where the EEOC has fined companies big money because forced ranking it disparately impacted women and minorities. Wells Fargo is setting itself up for major legal backlash. If you couple the fact that they just cut the corporate 401k match for everyone who makes over $250k. Who does that impact the most, older workers. I clearly see a pattern here developing for a huge age discrimination lawsuit. Couple that with our CEO making statements in public town halls at BNY Mellon and WFC that younger workers have better fresh and innovative tech and digital ideas, etc. You get the idea here. Add that to the fact that the DOL just sent them a letter...who is getting disparately treated through all of this, older workers. What do you think?
16 replies (most recent on top)
In my group, if you take off more time than your colleague, you are literally compared against your colleague in a little chart. To me the environment seems a little back stabbing as everyone knows they will be compared against each other so technically its in other people interest to drive their co-workers performance down as much as possible.
Now compared to a company like Google, their managers really felt like they were trying to support you and help you out, as it was actually in their best interest that you performed well. If you did well, then they got good ratings as well.
But here at wells, the incentives are a little messed up it seems. So if something doesn't meet the deadline, its not their fault and wont affect the manager, its the employee that gets the bad rating and gets fired. Because they have this performance axis based on direction they are trained to
harass. Then it became my job to harass to , just keep micromanaging and push them to keep working around the clock to finish deliverables.
My suggestion is to switch companies and see if you can find a company or manager that is more respective for you.
the days of hiding in a large company for 20 or 30 years in the same role are over.
@dqz+17yevVxu nails it.
I was always the youngest person in my group until all of a sudden I wasn't even close. It sneaks up on you.
Forced ranking or not, the company can still f*** with you and make your work life miserable so you quit. The manager can do this subtly, nitpicking, snide comments here and there, bad attitude towards you, etc. Remember, it's not illegal to be a bad and awful manager. Your complaints will fall on deaf ears. Who do you think the company's going to side with between you and the manager? Bottom line is, the company/manager will get rid of you one way or the other. It's sad but true.
You can’t as a company claim to want a diverse employee pool and then say well except if you’re over 50.
You can’t as a company claim to be against discrimination and then discriminate against an older population.
You can’t pick and chose the law and you can’t speak outside both sides of your face.
Well, I guess you can...
250k in ca or ny != 250k in IA. Not that we are getting bonuses this year but may be worth talking to your boss to make sure he doesn't give you a bonus that throws you over 250k if you will be close. what would be funny is if you are at 249975 and the someone gives you a TOP dollar award for $25.
and regarding rankings, I look at it this way... say MIT has 1 slot available and you have two valedictorians applying for that one spot, both are great and have done everything right, but you still need to decide who gets it and who doesn't, the difference may be trivial but there has to be one.
The commenters who are trolling older employees are missing the point. One day, if you are blessed to live until older age, you will wake up and realize that YOU are the older employee....and discriminated against with a job loss long before you can retire. Be careful what you allow...one day it will be you.
Another day, another lawsuit. So they get hit with another fine, so what? Cost of doing business.
@bjf+17yevVxu the problem with your argument is that the employee didn't increase his or her salary, WF did. If WF had capped the salary at $20k less and told them that there will be no increases, then the employee could leave or stay.
certain levels of management were provided with a PDF that explained the new ratings in detail, provided percentages for each rating, as well as sample write ups ("Overall Performance Commentary examples") for each rating. They also include key words to use in the write ups for each rating, also noting that "High quality documentation to support the overall rating is critical."
They also noted in the deck that employees with "misconduct corrective action in scope for 2020 should not be rated higher than Meets."
The PDF was sent to various folks via email so there is a paper trail and many people who received it have shared it with people who are not managers.
And, one of the sales guys laid off was top performer & was showered with awards & praise every quarter.
Over 55.
Texas, commercial finance
Everyone laid off last week, every single one, was over 50
Lol, and teh people doing the rankings are not even qualified!
Im in sales and do well...I'm not familiar with the forced rnaking concept, but it sounds like Hunger Games style management. If so, I've been doing it since day one.. eat what you k–l.
I'm not quite old enough to be considered an older worker, but if I was, I of course wouldn't want to be discriminated against, etc.
But, business is business. If another worker can do what you're doing for far less money, then the company has a duty to itself and shareholders to take the cheaper route. Employees forget that they're an expense, and that they exist only to serve.
These long outdated notions that companies should "care about" their employees need to be let go. It's disingenuous and always has been. Any appearance of "caring" was an act to motivate better performance.
But as we can see when the economy crumbles, job scarcity takes over and people are reminded how cold the employer-employee relationship really is.
Here's hoping for a vaccine and re-stimulated economy ASAP.
Can't really muster any tears for those making more than $250K whose 401K match was limited.
OK boomer... Would those older workers be the same ones asleep at their desks allowing scandal and fraud to fester, thus holding back the bank for years to come? And if you're making over $250K and you get ranked in the lower two categories, then you SHOULD be out.