Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

WF claims to care about these w/disabilites

My manager and 2 others on our broader team have disabilities that they've shared a select few on the team. 2 of them require WFH (I won't out their medical reasons; def valid).

Although medical accommodations were approved by HR, LOB leadership claims their roles can't be performed unless they are in the office 3/2. This is B.S. Our work is entirely digital and via virtual mtgs. Always has been.

They will have to quit, all bc of the whims of biased mgrs who have no compassion. How sick is that?!

All this talk about "Disability Pride month" on Teamworks, but WF does not support them. One of them was crying on the phone today, after being betrayed by sr. mgt. I felt awful for her. I know how much she's struggled.

Eff U, WF! I hope they süé you!

by
| 2079 views | | 17 replies (last July 17, 2023) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1nBCCgP0

17 replies (most recent on top)

Heard about this on 2 teams I work with. Dangerous game WF is playing. Better tell your mgrs to wise up or WF will be in the news AGAIN.

This company never learns until it's too late.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3ruw+1nBCCgP0

Tell them not to quit and tell them to continue to WFH. They'll get several warnings - before being fired (assuming WF is actually going to fire someone for this.) At each warning, they can re-iterate why they can't RTO. They can drag this out a long time and in that time maybe something will change. If nothing changes and they are fired, they'll have a stronger case than if they quit.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2vvf+1nBCCgP0

I've no doubt this is going on -- along w/discrimination based on age, location, etc. It's rampant. I hope they nail WF in court.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1mbp+1nBCCgP0

Oh, great. Here comes the next scandal! We knew it was just a matter of time.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @zgt+1nBCCgP0

Things that didn’t happen

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @kmp+1nBCCgP0

If these people are your friends, tell them to never ever quit. Force the company to fire you, which will lay the ground work for a monster lawsuit. They will retire rich.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rvz+1nBCCgP0

Wells cares about no one or nothing. Get a clue. A disabled person is a huge liab I’llity to them

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @yeq+1nBCCgP0

They fire people after they come from short term disability. I’ve seen it happen more than once.

They make it seem like it’s a performance issue. Yes, I’ve said this in a previous thread.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @iko+1nBCCgP0

wow that is terrible! they are sure pushing for a lawsuit... unless those remote people are documented as failing majorly in their jobs, that seems super suspect

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @zji+1nBCCgP0

you may not know the whole story. WFH doesn't have to be the accomodations. did they WFH prior to COVID? id argue if lob can prove the they need to be in office and certain accomodations were offered then the ball is in their court.

because of the initial influx of requests WFH was the default accomodations but now they are looking at things a little more closely and will adjust accordingly

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @oek+1nBCCgP0

Happening to one of my partners rn. Wells better pay attention and tighten up their treatment of vulnerable population. Not a good idea to mess w/ADA. All it takes is one to expose what's really going on. Risk to brand and leadership reputations.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @mpj+1nBCCgP0

Cool story bro

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @sco+1nBCCgP0

They don’t care. I almost wonder if they are having us self identify so they know who to target!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @non+1nBCCgP0

File with the EEOC. I agree with starting a written record through government agencies.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @pqv+1nBCCgP0

Why is this not surprising?
Go directly to áttórney.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @lpq+1nBCCgP0

Not a good look, WF. Why aren't you doing something to protect these people? Or is any "attrition", however unnatural and cruel, the point?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @heb+1nBCCgP0

Terrible. I hope they don’t quit. Force them to terminate or lay off.

Not a positive narrative for those LoB leaders being specifically named on the termination of an employee with a disability, especially if HR did their due diligence confirming it. The senior leaders can change their mind on the accommodation, but —-

This action can also eventually tarnish the leaders’ professional reputation and follow them when they leave WF, especially if the employee needs to explain to the state when filing for unemployment benefits. Be factual. Drop names, dates/time, and specifics. It’s a written record of it. If the leader does it again, this documentation will help establish a pattern for others. It will catch up to them.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bjf+1nBCCgP0

Post a reply

: