Holy sh-t. Could Schwab hire a less trained group of people? Why did we go through all these layoffs losing talented reps while these mo--ns are still on the phone!!!! They’re making my job so much harder than it needs to be
9 replies (most recent on top)
People keep wanting to understand the logic for who was let go. It was a very straight forward decisioning process: if you were among the higher paid for the role assigned or you were either not liked or you were a competitive threat to someone up your chain, then you were targeted. Simple.
Many folks got arbirary role name changes over the past couple of years, so many higher perfoming and more senior folks doing more than the role name implied stuck out and were easy pickings. They all look like the same commodity with different price tags. ... From the leadership perspective, who cares about actual quality/value (value of work output per dollar spent) when it is merely a cost cutting/numbers game and you don't know the difference?
Don’t worry, we’ll all be gone by March anyway. We sound like we know nothing because we were provided rotten training, thrown to the wolves, and continuously given little direction when we asked pertinent question about policy and procedure. “This cost basis question isn’t for cost basis, it’s for the service team. Oh you’re the service team and don’t know? Ask your lead. Your lead doesn’t know? Ask your manager. Your manager doesn’t know? Good luck.” It’s like hiring a ton of lawyers, throwing a book about Constitutional Law at them, and then being annoyed when they come back having not memorized the text in 5 days. From what I understand from friends in the company this is the same even for non client-facing roles. Just a general attitude of “not my job, ask the bottom of the hill where all the sh-t rolls.”
Most of the people I know that got cut either wanted it, talked about wanting it, some seemed to already know they were going to get it, or they always called in or had some performance items from the past.
In addition to 5 exceeds in a row, I had some medical issues in the last few years and am 50. Now out of a job.
5 years in a row exceeds or Far exceeds and I got laid off.
It would be interesting to see what the cost is to onboard and bring a new person up to speed with a lower salary than someone who makes more but is already competent in the position.
Would be nice to know the logic behind how they picked the people for layoffs.
Target older, more expensive, troublemaking or general competence under incompetent managers with a mix of role and position. Weed those who are protected classes or soon to be. Consider future geography and the cost of relocation or severance later.
It’s the same formula over and over. They can’t just take out over 45 or those with medical conditions. And losing all high pay would hurt on the job training for incoming workers.
But one need only ask if the person not next to them today was a poor performer or the bottom 10%. They rarely are because you can fire for cause.
Instead of hiring more people for the role, they have another department taking these calls 1x a week who received very minimal training
Would be nice to know the logic behind how they picked the people for layoffs.