Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

It's very 80's/90's style bu-t in seat thinking that is not as productive as they claim. Most studies support remote work being more productive than in office situations. Focus on the workers who aren't productive at home or who want to work in the office. Chuckie tried to do the same thing at Mellon bank but was foiled.

@ 1vuk+1gczwts2

You are 100% correct. They wanted people in office, and they wanted to implement their location strategy. Covid delayed their plans, and what could have been an opportunity for them to see how successful it could be; was instead seen as an obstacle on the way to their ultimate goal.

When you make the kind of salaries that the executives make, you become far removed from the realities of the average person.

They were already eliminating WFH before covid hit. Covid just threw a monkey wrench into their plans.

Remember when Covid first hit, how management was all bent out of shape and telling everyone "this isn't going to be the new normal" when people started WFH. I recall a meeting where somebody said "the senior leadership is livid" in describing how angry they were over people getting to WFH.

Now management is going to be coming after WFH just because they're mad about it. Has nothing to do with efficiency or productivity. Has everything to do with obstinance of the people in charge.

People are quitting non stop, in fact they forced attrition so much with RTO that we can't find anyone to fill our open underwriter roles. I can't imagine with so much attrition and management freaking out that they cannot backfill the positions that they will mandate 5 days a week, if that is the case, they will lose even more.

I don’t know how much I believe the claim that they are intending to remove wfh entirely…

Productivity went up during full wfh. I can get wanting some days to be in office simply due to all the paid for but unused office space. But full 5/5 in office — for what reasons does this benefit the company?

@1ocz

Hey HR manager -- are you even trying to explain a better alternative to execs that is a win-win for companies and employees? Or are you just another HR drone with schadenfreude? Frankly, we're sick and tired of all your sadistic posts reveling in WF's amped up threats. How 'bout you actually do something constructive for a change?

As a manager in HR, I can confirm that WFH is very much temporary. The executives plans are to eventually remove (as soon as Q3/2022) the 2 or 3 day per week remote option and resume a mandatory 5 day in office schedule. It’s all about collaboration and maximizing the investment in current real estate. So get ready, it’s coming.

It's amazing that the CEO and COO are both in their mid 50s.

They look and act like older generations though.

It's forever 1987 in that C suite...

"Terrible decision making in the C suite forcing employees to RTO that have no interest in doing so. One size does not fit all. The dinosaurs went extinct for a reason. Wall Street seems destined to follow them to the graveyard. Thanks boomers!"

Um, Charlie isnt a boomer. He is a GenXer. Layoff the Boomers.

Millennial here—got my big boy pants on. Just left this dumpster fire of a company for 20% increase and permanent remote. GFY boomer.

Post ID: @rbj+1gczwts2

WFH may not be allowed at WF for most employees any longer, but WFH is most certainly not temporary for those that actively seek it out.

Boomer here - don't blame the C-Suite id-ots on my generation. You should have known WFH was temporary. Put your big boy pants on.

Terrible decision making in the C suite forcing employees to RTO that have no interest in doing so. One size does not fit all. The dinosaurs went extinct for a reason. Wall Street seems destined to follow them to the graveyard. Thanks boomers!