Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

One trick pony Chainsaw - Bony Mellon employees revolted and threatened lawsuits when chainsaw threatened to eliminate remote work

Chainsaw is about as creative as a steaming pile of bull p-o

He tried the same tricks at Bank of NY when he short-timed over there.

A hatchet by any other color is still a hatchet. And what did not work there, he thinks we will put up with it here?

Let him try to force RTO - lawsuits are expensive for a corporation. It will be fun to see fed up employees all pile litigation on this company at the same time.

Maybe then he will take a hint.

https://www.post-gazette.com/business/career-workplace/2019/03/07/BNY-Mellon-work-home-Charlie-Scharf-layoffs-England-email/stories/201903070119

Employees in England reportedly were so distressed over the matter that several were considering legal action, claiming that flexible working arrangements were part of their contracts.

One employee there slammed the move as a “massive step backward for diversity and inclusion, which hits our most vulnerable demographics including careers, working parents and those with mental health issues,” according to a story in the Evening Standard in London.

The financial services giant employed about 7,000 people in the Pittsburgh region as of Sept. 30, but has undergone layoffs since then. The company declined to provide an updated employment figure.

BNY Mellon, with some 51,000 employees worldwide as of year-end, will take the next several months to reconsider its approach to working at home, Mr. Scharf said in his email. In the meantime, employees can revert back to their previous flexible work schedules.

Mr. Scharf — formerly CEO at Visa Inc. who took the reins at BNY Mellon in July 2017 and has made cost-cutting one of his key focuses — had backed the decision to curtail working at home as a way to increase collaboration and enable quicker decision-making.

But some workers pointed out that as part of a global company, staffers routinely interacted with colleagues remotely.

“While we believe that it is enormously helpful to have as many people as possible physically together working collaboratively, we also realize that changes can affect personal lives in many ways,” Mr. Scharf said.

“To be clear, we did not intend to eliminate the ability to have remote working arrangements,” he said, noting that management’s “principles” hadn’t been communicated clearly enough, resulting in “inconsistent implementation across the company.”

by
| 3157 views | | 13 replies (last September 23, 2021) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1cX27xOz

13 replies (most recent on top)

"The ones who stay will be those who are unable to leave because, to be frank, they’re just not as good."

I like most of your statement,@1qui+1cX27xOz, but take issue with this part; there are many excellent remote employees who haven't left because the job market is not good where they live.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1izt+1cX27xOz

@ Post ID: @1mhk+1cX27xOz

40 miles in some metro areas can be a 2-3 hour commute - ONE WAY! You’re calling this “considerate”? And “all things being equal”? Whose equal? Yours?

You really don’t have a clue.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1bhl+1cX27xOz

@1iyp

If 40 mile commute is a big deal, I believe one is free to work away or look for another job.

On this particular topic, WF is being quite considerate for a change, all things being equal.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1mhk+1cX27xOz

It’s been said over and over on this forum - Elimination of WFH is not about “collaboration”. It’s about reducing headcount while minimizing severance costs. People like @1iyp will just voluntarily leave and find another WFH gig. The shortsightedness of the c-suite is that those who do that are those who CAN - meaning they are the ones who are good enough to have that option. They’re marketable and in high demand. The best and brightest will find it easy to leave. The ones who stay will be those who are unable to leave because, to be frank, they’re just not as good. So WFC is choosing to push out some of their best talent while retaining the dead wood, and in the end it will cost the company more money, not less.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1qui+1cX27xOz

Post ID: @1ele+1cX27xOz

“The company is still honoring telecommuting agreements that were in effect prior to the pandemic provided that the distance from your home is over 40 miles.”

So it’s OK for the company to NOT honor telecommuting agreements for people who are within 40 miles, even though some of us accepted our positions specifically because we could WFH? Calculate the cost of gas, parking, and other expenses and consider it as a reduction in salary. Would you consider it honoring an agreement if WFC told you they were cutting your salary by $2000? And adding several hours a week to your work time (in the form of physically commuting?)

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1iyp+1cX27xOz

To be frank, WF does not owe anyone the opportunity to work from home.

The company is still honoring telecommuting agreements that were in effect prior to the pandemic provided that the distance from your home is over 40 miles. If not, you'll be invited to RTO.

In Technology, this means 2-3 days in the office or week. Mind you, most of the affected did not have a telecommuting agreement prior to the pandemic.

This is a great deal and I don't know why folks are complaining. Spoilt, maybe?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ele+1cX27xOz

@1iqw nah CJ, Charles will never get to fire me. The minute they start that jazz I'm just going to be like "Ok, I understand and see this is important to you that I have to come into the office if I am to remain employed here."

"Fu-k you, I quit."

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ehh+1cX27xOz

Wells Fargo has employees all over Europe and in England.

Trolls will troll.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1nwm+1cX27xOz

@1gjj+1cX27xOz

Do you live in England? There is a different culture there where they embrace family life. Plus remote work was literally written into their employment contracts!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1uva+1cX27xOz

Unfortunately I don’t really see how he can be successfully sued for taking away WFH policy here, since the remote worker contracts said upfront that they can be revoked at any time.

I’m not an employment law expert by any means, but would think there are probably stricter (better) worker’s rights in England that would have played into the BNYM situation.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1eoz+1cX27xOz

There have ALWAYS been working parents. You aren’t special. Get back in the office.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1gjj+1cX27xOz

I hope they do. We have a case acording to the lawyers I talked to. Why do you think they aren't taking about relo? Don't do it. I'm just waiting for the mandate. The attorney's retainer was affordable. I'm not happy about it but I would rather fight and protest than roll over. Send him an email. Stand up for yourselves people. When did American's get so weak? It won't stop here, it won't stop with WF if you give in.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1wvw+1cX27xOz

Charlie can't wait to start firing people with cause. If you don't show, your fired with cause. Then you get no special package, no unemployment, no bonus, no 401k match, nothing. Then when your looking and say you haven't worked for half a year or whatever other companies will either not want you flat out or low ball you with half your current salary, that's reality. As a friend I would say Man Up and go back when they tell you.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1iqw+1cX27xOz

Post a reply

: