Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

So this is a reality now. Locations with less than 10 team members (including WFH), have received notice to relocate by 10/31 or "may" receive a severance package following that date. The irony is, that we are now needing team members to work from home (WFH), due to Coronavirus risks. Couldn't the Firm (Saul) take a rain check on his policies?

This may help explain what is / is not happening. Charlie had the same issue / conflict with telecommuters at BNY in Just last March 2019, and it did not go well. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bony-mellon-work-from-home/bny-mellon-puts-brakes-on-changes-in-work-from-home-rules-for-staff-idUSKCN1QO22V?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews

Who CARES where someone is located, as long as they are a productive and contributing member of the team and company?!

This is all so ridiculous. Telecommuting is NOT the cause for the toxic culture and management corruption. Period.

WF's "strategy" is still in the dark ages or non-existent – doing anything makes it look like Saul and others are at least doing something... but that doesn't mean the something isn't just as stupid as what was done before. SMH.

They are just shuffling deck chairs around on the Titanic (I can hear the music now...).

Heard that this phase is to only relocate telecommuters basically in the middle of nowhere. they may still be telecommuters if they move close to close to A technology hub.

Cities w more than 10 tech people aren’t in phase 1 whether they go into an office or not.

So if telecommuters are each considered office of 1, all telecommuting is banned?

Would SF Bay Area telecommuters all have to go to SF, or could they go to Oakland, Concord, etc. offices that have more than 10 people?

Such stupidity.

@crab+13aGUQjO... So for less than 10.. Does this include my manager who works from a WF location but who only manages 2 people?

Those working in areas with less than 10 (telecommuter or otherwise) can expect to receive notice Feb 12.

I left Wells Fargo a few months ago before the telecommute ban hit. Last month I heard from a couple people I know who are full-time telecommuters and aren't near any office that they had been told by their manager (which came from several levels of manager up) that they would have to relocate - they would receive a letter in Feb with the details.

So #1 is not correct. There is still some IT talent at Wells - largely people over 40 who have been there a while because anyone young who was really talented would have shunned Wells in recent years. I suspect that remaining talent will be fertile ground for other companies looking to hire.

I predict that sometime in the next 3 years, Saul implodes spectacularly. There's nothing inherently wrong with having a glorified accountant in charge of tech (despite his claims otherwise, his resume shows the closest he's been to actual "doing" in tech was as a mid-level manager), but he has no conception of what he doesn't know.

Despite that prediction, the company itself may survive just fine. IT has been stagnant for 3-4 years now and it doesn't seem to be hurting earnings. In the era of TBTF, you don't have to innovate you just have to survive. If they do go down, it will be due to the business side being unable to avoid scandal.

The city is spelled Charlotte. Now the main Wells Fargo hub city.

Doubt you’ll have a choice they will probably give you an option and you take it or leave

Will people have a choice of these locations or be directed to one?

So everyone will be eventually working at one of these areas. I’m confused I would think they would get rid of the 10 or less people first and then make the rest of staff move to one of these locations! To many unanswered questions to believe this post.

the locations posted are 100% accurate and were provided to us by our manager, who was reading off of something

I smell a lot of BS in this "leaked" email. First, it doesn't jive with what Saul has said in his AMA's or Town Halls. Second, it doesn't address the "Locations with 10 or fewer Team Members, including telecommuters". Third, Wells Fargo NEVER and I mean NEVER releases a notification or an announcement on a Sunday which is what March 22nd is. Fourth, the target market cities keep changing with every post. Fifth, Saul's organization is massive and includes elements of Risk which for whatever reason, is never mentioned in these assumptive posts. Lastly, Saul has said on many occasions that considerations would be made for impacted families with moves completing before the start of the new school year. October is nearly the end of the 1st quarter for 90% of the schools in the country. How about we get some concrete facts that actually make sense on here instead of completely foundation-less speculation.

Any telecommuter out of state and not near a location would be considered a hardship, imho.

Poster @2dsu+13aGUQjO is accurate in terms of displacement/salary continuation at Wells Fargo. As a manager who has gone through multiple rounds of laying off team members, this has been the policy.

I don't believe that this 3-6 month lump sum payout is accurate at all. In the past, there has been a formula used to determine whether or not a move to a specific location would be a hardship for a team member or not. So, if the required move was over a certain mile distance from a current commute, then, these team members would be eligible for salary continuation as outlined in the team member handbook. If the distance was not considered a hardship, then it was up to the team member whether or not he/she would be willing to work at the location, but there was never a lump sum payment on the table if they chose not to make the move to the new location.

The 10 team members that aren’t on the list of desirable cities are the next phase.

Not sure if this location layoff is a one off in regards to severance, but you typically get a 2 month notification and then 2 weeks for every year up to a max of 1 year of severance. The severance is paid out like you were still an employee and you get a pay check every 2 weeks until until your severance ends. If you get a new job while on severance, you will get lump sum for the remaining balance right away. While on severance, you still have your benefits like med and such, but you can’t contribute to your 401k or earn any additional PTO time. Your PTO balance will be paid out in full before you start getting severance.

"lump sum up front."

Not sure. Companies either do a lump sum, or they put you on Garden Leave where you would continue paying you for the next 6 months.

I'm sure it will depend on how they will want to do it from a tax benefit perspective.

Exactly, if they offer the 6 months, do they do a lump sum up front?

"I know of a group of full time I.T. telecommuters that were told recently they needed to relocate to a office starting in March. "

some groups got an exception from Saul and will not be impacted this year. Others were not able to get an exception.

these telecommuters also may not have been in the list of cities already talk about. We also do not know if they lived near an office but were not going to the office. There is a lot of that happen.

The locations have been posted already:

LA, Winston, Philly, Phoenix, Charolette, Raleigh, India, Des Moines, SF, St Louis, Portland, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Minneapolis, NYC, Richmond, Salt Lake, San Antonio, DC, Atlanta, Denver
Manilla, India

If anyone has names of actual cities where people were told they could relocate to, that would be handy to start posting, so we could see actuality vs rumor.

I am confused too. There is no mention of the 10 TM or less in this leaked document. The document does not coincide what is already happening. I know of a group of full time I.T. telecommuters that were told recently they needed to relocate to a office starting in March. They will be allowed to work remotely 2 or 3 days a week. I am calling BS on this leaked document.

how certain are we about this city list? Richmond or Chicago weren’t on it before.

I’m confused. In the AMA last week Saul confirmed that the 10 people or less office thing included telecommuters. Full time telecommuters are an office of exactly ONE. But according to this post, we are safe no matter where we are located? Last week a New Mexico SA received the notice ( full time telecommute) and was given the option to move or leave.

this is ONLY for Saul's org. His peers were not interested in participating.

What happen to the 10 or less people at a site or your gone? Does it not matter now?

"saving money is the objective."

Its a strategy employed to ensure a certain amount of forced attrition without having to do an official reduction in force which would cause negative press and cost money due to severance packages, unemployment, lawsuits, etc.

The locations are set and confirmed from multiple folks who saw the communication

LA, Winston, Philly, Phoenix, Charolette, Raleigh, India, Des Moines, SF, St Louis, Portland, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Minneapolis, NYC, Richmond, Salt Lake, San Antonio, DC, Atlanta, Denver
Manilla, India

Well I hope this isn't true, I've really loved my job here in FDK. I guess we will know when we know.

What was the date in the email

Whatever the plan was before, it’s clear now that saving money is the objective. You can’t save money by dragging people into an office who don’t already it occupy it - your expenses will always go up no matter the floor plan or desk size.

Is this just telecommuters under Saul or all employees under him? Meaning for #3 does this pertain to those with a desk, come into office every day but do not work in one of the main hubs?

"3-6 months severance, or relocate by October 1st."

Why take the severance when you can tell them you are relocating. then start looking for job and stay in your job until October then quit.

LA, Winston, Philly, Phoenix, Charolette, Raleigh, India, Des Moines, SF, St Louis, Portland, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Minneapolis, NYC, Richmond, Salt Lake, San Antonio, DC, Atlanta, Denver
Manilla, India

telecommuters absolutely being targeted unless your group got exception.

some groups applied for exceptions and some were approved

So wait.. What.. Telecommuters are not going to be targeted? I thought he said that in his all hands talk a week ago. Along with those working in areas with less than 10?