Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

This is how they did it 20 years ago, when I started. 100% telecommute for 20% less pay.

Problem is those people making 20% less are now being told to put on neckties and pay for parking and gas and waste hours driving to some office for no good reason - for the same 20% less pay.

These sentiments need to be sent to the Board. Think they can trace back the IP address to identify the employee(s) who send the links?

Or how about we just stick with the same WFH model we’ve had for the last decade that has worked fine?

@OP-->""And why would I accept less pay to do the same job I have been doing from home for the past 5 years????""

No model fits to all, that is why we should have multiple options to choose. And each option should have some logical advantage for both employee and company. win-win situations.

@zyl+1fuUkd9K

if you think phoenix is as expensive as new york city.... I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.

This is the classic capable worker vs incapable worker discussion. The capable workers are happy operating on their own, getting work done, and only interacting when they have to. Incapable workers need to be in proximity to others so they can get non-digitally-tracked assistance with their work, and schmooze everyone who might help them get a raise.

Let us capable workers keep being capable, don't force us to carry the animated paper weights.

With posts/comments like these I stop wondering why leadership is actively trying to get 10-20% of the company to resign.

@mik+1fuUkd9K you are correct. The only thing standing in the way of this being truth in practice is that the “low cost” labor markets are depressing wages for the middle professional layer of worker.

Hourly workers are seeing wages rise due to social pressure, executives see their wages rise because their compensation packages are tied to equity prices. The mid-level professionals who accomplish the work are stagnant and artificially underpaid based on the outmoded ideas like pay by location and office presence.

Even the location differentials the company uses are outdated. The Phoenix market is just as expensive as metro NYC with the rise in housing prices yet they are assigned region 002.

I like this idea for the most part. People feel more empowered when they have choices. And empowered employees are happy and engaged employees who perform better.

I would gladly take less pay in order to have a better life balance and more hours in my day without the rush hour commute.

Also - there is a part of me who wants to even-up the score with someone who enjoys exerting their power over me. Am I the only one who thinks this way?? Treat me well, like a partner, and I will go to the ends of the earth for you. Treat me like a servant, and I will happily operate at 30% capacity.

@haz+1fuUkd9K - you read my mind! I’ll never understand the mindset of upper management. When I started at Wells one of the main reasons I even applied was for the location. Now, I’m at a different location, farther away, now I have to pay for parking, and will be ‘collaborating’ with nobody in my group, as they are spread around the country. If the main goal is attrition, what they fail to realize is that those who are the best and brightest and don’t care for being treated like children are the ones who will leave. I know of several companies that have adopted a well thought out strategy. Those that prefer to work from home can do so. Those that prefer an office environment can come in. After the dust settles, then they can reassess their property holdings. How is this not a win-win?

Why should salary for a SKILL vary based on location? This is another outdated concept.

A company is paying for competency, experience and skill. The location of these things should have no bearing on their worth.

There are two groups of people. One group had official telecommuting agreements, and accepted positions which offered 100% remote work, long before Covid. The second group had the opportunity to work from home when the majority of the company started working from home in 2020. For people in the second group, they saw it as an opportunity to prove how successful work from home could be. For parents in both groups, not only did they need to meet or exceed productivity expectations, but they also needed to ensure their children continued to complete school assignments, and adjust to any challenges that came along with that. In many departments, productivity increased because of how determined people were to show that working from home wasn’t a bad thing. If it had been for less than a month, then it might have been different, but when you have made substantial changes and done something for 2 years, it’s tough to go back from that.

It also isn’t just RTO. It’s the way Wells Fargo is crushing employee morale. It’s the telecommuting agreements that were made null and void (but that alone doesn’t make people eligible for severance). It’s the people who were working in one building, and now have a longer commute to a different building, and in some cases parking costs. It’s the “better together” line, when that togetherness is somewhat random in some cases. It’s the delay of 401k matching until the end of the year so that Wells Fargo profits instead of the “employee”. It’s the cycle of training counterparts in India for months, who then take a job at a different bank down the street. It’s the location strategy which limits job opportunities.

There have been people who have been working at Wells Fargo for years, who have taken jobs specifically for the ability to work from home, or who made that a condition of employment. Depending on the position, those aren’t as easy to find as what seems to be implied in some of the comments.

No matter which group people are in, very few people believe the reasons for RTO, and that creates a lot of resentment too. People also have financial obligations, and being told to just accept it or find something else, doesn’t make things better for anyone. Those who can find something better will leave, and those people who are leaving tend to be the qualified people who do well in their positions.

And why would I accept less pay to do the same job I have been doing from home for the past 5 years????

You have options to find a remote job. No one is forcing you to rto. Quit.

oh my freaking gawd what is wrong with you people. Grow a pair

If I had to wait tables, I would just take everyone's order in the restaurant, and then just leave out the back door, never to return.

i'll take option 2 and then VPN back to the states and login.

I love the hypothetical negation stuff but I'll see you lads on the 14th because I'm not wealthy and in this day in age of hyper inflation have every increasing bills to pay.

I do agree this idea, some companies are providing breakfast, lunch and dinner if they wish to work from office. And some companies are providing commute expenses, arranging pickup vehicles or some kind of incentives to attract people to come to office.

I will choose Option 1