@cx that's interesting. Mine unfriended everyone and changed into a completely different person overnight. From what I gather the reason behind it was to 'protect themselves'. I stood there flabbergasted but I didn't day anything, I thought to myself from what?
Keep in mind this person knew me a better part of a decade and we both shared updates about daily life without any issue. A close as a family friend even acting. Still hasn't fully recovered and that's been two years now.
@cm what? Reread my comment please.
@d6 another IM and you'll be terminated without severance - saves the company $$ to do it that way
@d4
Really. That is his only job? You have intimate knowledge of his typical day as a COO. Literally he just comes up with s88t every day to torment and ways to downsize people.
COO is the most evil person in banking. Hmmm, ok. As apposed to who else in banking?
I don't have any vested interest at all in this sh-tshow nor the derps running this asylum but common man, can't you come up with a more intelligent post than gaslighting cr-p about a person you don't even know.
@cy
I did that when I got my IM. I told him it would be wise to lay me off. It would be a win for him, the team, and for me.
F'in still here.
COO is quite possibly the most evil person in banking. His only job is to torment and downsizing people. He's completely worthless for anything else. The day he leaves WF will be a great one for the company. Absolute garbage executive. Even worse than Shart, and that's saying something.
If you want to volunteer for a round of layoffs, mention it to your manager. Eventually, when the manager has to provide a couple names, hopefully, they move your name to the top of the list. It's happened hundreds (if not thousands) of times.
@ac+1kyrbbmb9 I don't care how close you are with your mgr, never let a mgr follow your social media. My old mgr stalked everyone that he could FB page. He didn't deny it, but creepy AF.
@OP The COO required the exercise to understand the effects of 12%, 20, and 30% reductions in each area to be completed month end June. If you want to test your management, ask if they know.
Like many have already stated, the number comes from the top. The name on the line is your leadership.
@cn
Concur, decades here and also been on that side to come up with names to chop from my manager.
Submitted them, argued with my manager on who to keep. Manager submitted list, and those who survived that round were ones that were on the list. Go figure.
I have been here for decades and have downsized too many people unfortunately. Never once had input on who. If your LOB gives you that flexibility, good for you. It would be nice, but regardless my main point was that whether or not downsizing was happening is not the managers choice. They are either told "get rid of Timmy and Cindy" or they are told "get rid of your 2 weakest performers". 2 people are going away regardless of what the manager actually wants to do or believes is the right thing to do. If they resist, it's 3 people.
@a5 this is wildly inaccurate . Do you even work at WF? Managers don’t like cutting staff but they DEFINITELY play an active role in identifying who gets cut
@c9 this is accurate, thanks for posting. Any manager thatacts like they didn’t have a direct influence on the fate of the person getting cut are LYING. I have been on the delivering aide of multiple layoff convos and the pre-work was a cluster, trying to identify who had to be let go because everyone was doing good work (after 1 or 2 rounds to get rid of lower performers ). That’s the thing - my group has been cutting so deep that we are now forced to hit good performers too. It’s insane - leadership says “I need 12 names by Tuesday” and there is NO appetite for anything but the names of the next victims of our b!thch of a CEO and demon CAO.
@a2 That's not practical, still need to pay.
It's better make up some performance issue and terminate
@c9 Lob, At which level? For example, for IT, It will be CIO level? Thanks
I am a manager who has laid off employees and have terminated some. In a layoff, the LOB makes the decision entirely. HR's role is only to verify that the business case isn't based on illegal discrimination. When a group is targeted for reductions, a manager might be asked to rank employees or to list their value. Other times, they have no input whatsoever. If the director doesn't know your name as an impact maker, you are at risk to be on the list. If the director knows you as a troublemaker, you are at risk to be on the list. If a manager claims that HR made the decision regarding a layoff, that's complete bullsh-t.
It’s leadership, not HR. It’s always personal and there’s always exceptions if your leader really doesn’t want you displaced.
In Tech/CS - it is "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe"
My Manager and I got laid off same day. His layoff was 10 mins before mine. Manager was shocked. I was waiting for my golden ticket. 😉
@a5 this is 1,000% correct. I work in HR, and the reality is that we’re in this mess right along with everyone else. The notion that we are driving layoffs is ridiculous.
Guess that explains when I was laid all but one manager even would respond to me asking how everyone was doing.
Out of the three managers I knew, one accepted my friend request, the other two either deactivated or blocked me and/or doesn't even follow me on LinkedIn.
I reeaally don't know what happened, I was on great terms with everyone.
Does anybody else have a similar experience?
Those who truly know aren’t here posting. The rest are making inferences. My manager has experienced the entire spectrum of zero input to specific target, and I do believe them when they tell me how the selection occurred.
Location Strategy is still very real. Reasons are fungible so it doesn’t matter if it’s blamed on poor performance or location, all that matters is that we have to hit efficiency numbers and lobs are told to cut x%.
I wish we could volunteer, I am
ready!!
HR is just a tool, and is themselves being massively impacted by outsourcing. 100% of the drive for this BS is coming from the top. No one else matters, because no one else has authority anymore. Titles are irrelevant. If you're on the OC you have power. If you're not, you're just passing on directives from higher authority. So no, it's not HR or your manager. Neither actually wants to downsize you.
I've heard both. We have been told one round was HR determined and last was a senior leader. They should just take volunteers. :)