Any ideas on relocation? Are we still going to be asked to move to hub cities? How does this fit in with RTO? There's still no consistent messaging on this coming from the C-Suite. At some point decision need to be made and direction and policy communicated. Having people wait like this is cruel and unusual punishment. Many of us are on hold and we cannot make major life decisions due to leadership's inability to figure this out.
21 replies (most recent on top)
Seems pretty simple to me.
If the relocation plan were cancelled, they would tell you.
So you have two explanations.
- They have had a year and still can’t decide what’s up.
- They’re going to crank up the location strategy as soon as possible but know when they announce it people are going to head for the exits, often the very people who keep things running. They don’t want that to happen before they’re ready for it to happen.
Which is more likely? Incompetence or underhandedness?
the pandemic interrupted what was a clearly defined policy on locations. It wasn't public info - considered restricted/confidential because of the implications for exiting some locations with operations sites.
The list of target locations does exist, and the corp properties group continues to move with that direction. Even if a city/area is on the target list, there may still be shrinkage of the real estate in that market... a good example is the SF bay area. it's on the list of target locations but also is shrinking the footprint. The RTO questions threw a couple of twists in here but by and large in the long tern the policy for property is unchanged.
Regarding RTO, it's dependent on a specific set of criteria that is evaluated by location... not the least of which is that the new case levels per 100K population. In some areas of the country that's not going to be a problem - vaccination rates are high and new cases are plummeting. in some areas, not so much.
If an area passes the RTO thresholds, then they will be put on staggered schedules - hybrid wfh and in-office. This will be with reduced capacity/maximum occupancies. The percentage has not yet been determined. JPM has announced their RTO at max 50% capacity, google at 30%. So it's likely that a hybrid model will be with us for some time to come at WF, especially since the company is simultaneously reducing their physical property footprint.
Assuming that all settles out in the next 3-6 months, then there is the question of full time remote, and whether business units or functions can further restrict location choices... and the answer is - yes, within the limits of the overall policy, the individual business units or functions can do anything they want - including but not limited to mandating specific locations as hubs, and WFH policy changes.
If you were hired as 100% remote and you don't have a contract that says you will be permitted to maintain WFH indefinitely (different than a telecommute agreement), then your business unit or function can change that at will any time and for any reason (or no reason at all, check your telecommute agreement). This is not unique to WF... however, as we have all seen in the press the trend is the opposite - more firms agreeing to 100% remote than in the past.
We're probably going to live with a lot of continuing uncertainty around these topics for some time.... so the best thing is to make your own plans.
I’m sure that’s what you are counting on, Chuckles.
Stop waiting. Get another job!
WIMT will fill positions in Mpls, St Louis, Charlotte, or Richmond.
You all have to go back to the office. You are not remote workers. The Bank has to pay the lease payments whether you are there are not. That is a huge expense. There are icon Wells Fargo buildings all over the US. Do you think they are going to give up those leases?
No, frankly. There are legitimate considerations, but a running theme on this board is the arbitrary nature of decision-making at Wells. SVB may declare one location to not be a hub for his group, but MN may declare it one for hers, all for people with little to no collaboration or face-time needed to accomplish their work. Managers, execs, Scharf, whoever, have all shown themselves again and again to be completely out of touch, and the fact that we are STILL waiting for the details of this to emerge, over a year into a pandemic which has shown how outmoded location-based thinking is for back office workers is absurd. There are broad, obvious strokes which could be applied across LOB's regarding the strategy, but once again, we are seeing no proof of that.
"It depends on the LOB and the nature of the job" IS the rational approach, is it not? Let's put it another way, what approach would be more rational? Also, middle managers may make these calls in your LOB, but that's not how it goes in all of them. It's an upper management/exec thing, not a manager thing, at least in some. The midlevel manager is likely just passing down the word regarding someone else's decision.
There's been no consistent message because there has been no message at all. It's all rumors. It's not management fault that a bunch of folks are spreading rumors. Maybe some are true and some aren't, but I'm not sure management is to blame. I bet people here had no clue that they've been talking about the hub strategy for almost 10 years. The rumors have just now started flying around a lot more
@lse+1aICzAmS Well thanks for stating the obvious? Of course there are multiple factors to consider, like literally everything else in life. Nobody was saying there should be a single approach, but a rational one, or even a hint of one in the years this has been planned should have emerged by now. Like a lot of things here the buck is constantly passed around with the location/heinously outdated WFH policies, usually winding up with petty middle managers who will make the "tough guy" (bad) decision just to make it look like they have a good reason to exist.
I agree. Yet our upper management talks about everybody back in the office like it is no big deal. Explain that.
There has to be variation within the LOB because there are different job descriptions. Some kind of regional/area manager is almost certainly WFH, but the people that report to her may have a very real/practical need to be in an office. There's a lot of factors at work here, I'm not sure why anyone expects there to be a single approach for all 260,000 employees when there hasn't been a single approach in many years (at least a decade prior to COVID, probably longer).
@bxs. If they had a family, they wouldn’t have that attitude. No one with a family that had to be uprooted would. Simple logic. So I stand by the statement.
@fls There are millennials with families and single boomers. Pro tip: next time don’t make your point lose all credibility with over generalization.
me's want to relocate, how does I sine up?
@hkf+1aICzAmS Yup, there is no consistency or clarity even within LOB's, let alone between them. The whole thing is typical WF cluster F²
@sty sounds like a millennial without a family who is happy to pick up and go anywhere. Most people that actually have a life can’t live like that.
There is non "concrete plan" because this is yet another subject that is LOB specific. People responding may be in other LOBs that are doing things differently, which may or may not be for good reason. In any case, it means that all responses should be taken with a dump truck sized grain if salt.
@sty+1aICzAmS No, that's not what my plan should be. That's lame and I will NOT play into their plan of making life here so miserable that they force me out. Nope! I'm staying until whatever comes my way or when I'm ready to leave on my terms - not theirs.
Your plan should be finding another job
There has been no consistent message from the C-Suite on this topic as there hasn’t been on many others because there is no concrete plan. Only a fool hasn’t realized this after two years of this madness.
Talk is cheap without a definite plan. These folks have shown they are incapable of it.