It would have been a promotion, but since I'm not in hub city I can't even apply. Incredibly frustrating. I suppose those "opportunities for growth" are for only the geographically desirable.
89 replies (most recent on top)
I live in SoCal and can’t get an interview either bc I don’t live in a hub. It’s not a bandwidth thing, it’s a zip code thing.
@8jto+1dpPfxsS
Better to hobble along than to completely stop.
I love how remote work (and I assume the accompanying low bandwidth in some cases) was embraced during COVID so the bank could continue functioning, but now we're all labeled non-productive and unreasonable.
Why not require all remote workers pass a test to show results of a speedtest? I like that test more than someone shoving a swab up my nostril
Post ID: @8aiv+1dpPfxsS
Yep. The 6Mb DSL from Centurylink that was my only option until I paid Comcast Business just under $4K to pull copper in so I could get 25Mb - it's real and it sucks.
@8aiv+1dpPfxsS
Verifiable records of help desk calls. ISP and slowness issues are much higher in non hub areas. Infrastructure is often outdated in many of these areas because ISPs would rather focus on areas that bring in the most income.
Some areas are even losing roads to their homes! Somewhere in Wisconsin {I think that’s where it was, one of the flyover states} there was an article about a family who had the county wipe roads off their map. This included a winding stretch to their own home. They have to pay out of pocket to maintain it or to have any utilities installed/maintained now.
"Too many rurals with low bandwidth DSL or Satellite Internet complaining about how slow everything is."
Supporting data?
@4hfm+1dpPfxsS
Remote work or not, you'll still need to be near a hub. Too many rurals with low bandwidth DSL or Satellite Internet complaining about how slow everything is. Best to just take them out of the equation.
Actually it has been like this for a couple years, basically since the failed Chase management team got here. It is like that there too.
it's been like this since at least last year. I applied for over 30 roles and got the auto reject on all of them within 24 hours. I was able to have a candid convo with one of the hiring managers who was also wondering what was going. One of his long time colleagues in another team had applied for the same role and had the same thing happen: auto reject. The long time colleague also contact him.
Manager contacted HR... In sum, HR is actively screening applications from internal employees who are "Field Reps" and not in core locations. These apps are rejected. They don't even make it to the hiring manager.
Preference is for local hires in core locations.
At least in my group, exception approval for Field Reps outside of core locations have to go all the way up to Saul.
Remote work is the future and Wells Fargo is the past.
@2rim+1dpPfxsS
Yeah that's not anti employee. It's a little restrictive, but not anti employee. If they can find someone or find even two cheap employees in a preferable city, that's business. It costs more to support the one offs. Differing insurance plans depending on whats offered in that state, more of a cost for shipping hardware or recovering hardware, differing employment laws, etc. They want that to be as uniform as they can. Its all about saving money - unfortunately its not usually the people on the bottom rungs that see any benefit to these savings.
Post ID: @2jce+1dpPfxsS
I consider it to be anti- employee if the BANK/HR is inflexible regarding a remote worker applying for a remote job at a distant hub. Common sense should come in to play. We are located in St Louis and we have a remote worker in Florida and a remote worker in Atlanta. It doesn’t make a difference if they are 10 minutes away or 10 hours away.
@2fnh+1dpPfxsS
The guy below me gets it. This article mentions remote jobs, not rural areas. Rural areas are a lost cause. Suburbs and nearby smaller metro areas {think 75,000 and above - smaller cities mainly} will survive. Small towns are already fading away.
That article doesn’t say that at all lol.
The 41 million is the amount of people expected to have remote jobs, while the article goes on about the suburbs, not “rural areas”.
But at the same time, some experts are expecting remote workers to continue flocking to rural areas -- suggesting that as many as 41M could be remote and rural within 5 years:
https://www.millionacres.com/real-estate-investing/articles/report-almost-41-million-us-workers-to-be-fully-remote-in-the-next-5-years/
@2gej+1dpPfxsS
NOPE. Because you'll see less and less funds dedicated to upkeep in those towns for infrastructure. By forcing everyone towards larger metro hubs it starves them of population, taxes/income, federal grants, and less companies will want to invest around those smaller rural areas as well. So when the city and the radius around it has speedy fiber everywhere and many more amenities-it ripples outward drawing more businesses to those areas, and more employees. Once AI/Automation ki-l off trucking jobs {10 years or less}, farming jobs {15 years or less}, teaching {10 years or less before remotely taught classes are normal thing} and the rest of the jobs keeping rural areas afloat, those will shrivel even faster. It's like catching sand in a sieve - you may be able to slow it down, but you cant stop it from slipping away.
Ha, the rural states will be just fine. We hear people endlessly droning on about how everyone will WFH in the future economy. Lots of remote workers will chose to live in low cost / low tax rural areas. Or in a million dollar 200 SQ ft pad in a horrible neighborhood in SF, whatever.
@1wna+1dpPfxsS
Location Strategy isn't anti-employee. Its pro-profit. Centralizing employees isn't bad for the employees, unless you're one of the outliers. In that case, if you think WF is alone in doing this, you're going to be in for a very rough decade or so. Companies across the board are centralizing in bigger cities for multiple reasons - better pools of dual language employees, better diversity, better technology skill-set pools, higher pools of low-end workers for jobs with high turnover. Its going to leave a lot of rural states/areas hurting for jobs very soon- but these companies are doing whats best for their shareholders or their bottom line.
@1wna+1dpPfxsS It's Wells Fargo. The morally bankrupt employees were the ones who kept their jobs in a lot of cases, so they're over-represented.
@1wsn+1dpPfxsS Ok great you shot down another strawn man. We’re talking about the OP here though. I know it takes a lot of effort to contort reality to put WF in the right, but try to keep up.
WHO on this board is supportive of anti-employee policies? It’s like defending and rationalizing arson, littering, and puppy mills- activities that normal and decent people automatically reject.
Key words being normal and decent. I feel certain it is just one person who enjoys attention for being an antoginst. Maybe this person could try to get attention for raising the bar, not lowering it.
@1whh+1dpPfxsS asking for a promotion and not being willing to do the work required for the promotion isn't a reasonable request.
Someone labeling a reasonable request of their employer as an "entitlement" is a good indication that they will attempt to justify anything a corporation does. Their programming always gives them away.
If you were applying to a job at another company, and they had specified locations, would you think it is your right to be considered for that job if you weren't willing to relocate? Of course not. But for some reason people seem to think that at this company, it's an entitlement to be able to work from any location you choose.
It may have been that way in the past but it's not any more. And it's not going back to how it was. If you want to get ahead and don't want to move, it's as simple as this: change companies.
@1nkv+1dpPfxsS you misused the word "irony" :) and the OP is complaining about not qualifying for a promotion while spamming up votes. That is irony.
"op the way you waste your day instead of WORKING just tells us why you aren't getting a promotion"
You Wells folks sure have a poor understanding of irony.
@1fop+1dpPfxsS
"To apply the hub strategy retroactively is to displace all current employees who are not in the hubs of that group, it doesn’t seem like OP’s group is doing that (yet)."
**They will be, very soon. To all non hub locations.
"To apply to hub strategy going forward is to draw a line in the sand on new hires and backfills that they can only be in those hub cities for the group."
** This is the plan going forward. If you are not in a hub, you are guaranteed nothing.
"we essentially no longer have remote workers post RTO, since almost all telecommuting agreements were nullified"
**Some LOBs are trying to work around it or ignore it, but its happening regardless.
op the way you waste your day instead of WORKING just tells us why you aren't getting a promotion
/@1ban+1dpPfxsS I mean, is it illogical? To apply the hub strategy retroactively is to displace all current employees who are not in the hubs of that group, it doesn’t seem like OP’s group is doing that (yet). To apply to hub strategy going forward is to draw a line in the sand on new hires and backfills that they can only be in those hub cities for the group.
Also last time I checked, we essentially no longer have remote workers post RTO, since almost all telecommuting agreements were nullified.
Whether or not we agree with the decisions themselves, or how smart those decisions on telecommuting or hub strategy are irrelevant. WF is applying them fairly consistently, as do many other companies. Don’t like it? You can leave, I’m certainly trying to.
Wow, Management/Trolls sure have a hard on for this thread.
@1vxs+1dpPfxsS yes you are not an employee regarded well enough to get special dispensation. Face the facts.
"For the OP, did you try bypassing HR and speak to the hiring manager? The manager may not be aware you want to apply."
Yes, I spoke to the hiring manager as well as my manager. Their manager said our LOB is being very strict about the location strategy and unfortunately couldn't be considered.
But clearly the only logical explanation is that I'm an underperforming employee.
That’s a great response to a point nobody made
@1mhz+1dpPfxsS there is a huge difference between being an employee that doesn't qualify for a promotion AND an exception to the job requirements of the promotion vs being a horrible employee
Hmm OP’s experience conflicts with the fairy tales I tell myself about WF being egalitarian, so it must be because he’s a bad employee
For the OP, did you try bypassing HR and speak to the hiring manager? The manager may not be aware you want to apply. If he/she thinks you'd be a good fit, they can resubmit the job for the location you will be working at.
Please understand though, if you have been approved to work from home in your current role, it would still require OC approval for you to continue working remote in any other position.
This is how they are ending full time WFH. Basically to continue doing so in the future, you will have to go to hub if you change jobs, unless you are known by Saul as indispensable.
@1hvi+1dpPfxsS that is basically confirming that they will change the location if they like the candidate
I think some are ignoring how incompetent HR is. If you have a candidate you want to hire and they are not at a location in the job description, you can't just hire them.
You have to pull the job and resubmit it with the location updated for the candidate. We are going through that now, but it has been several weeks since the job was resubmitted to HR and they have not yet posted it again.
And then everyone clapped