I know there's a lot of animosity towards Charlie right now for several very good reasons (I am no fan of the man, let me make that perfectly clear) but is he really the worst CEO we've had since Kovacevich? Or is he just the current CEO so he is drawing everybody's ire by default?
11 replies (most recent on top)
Truly he is
Scharf and his cronies have implemented a policy that for the last two years has made most employees worried about getting laid off with no end in sight.
There is no transparency here anymore. There are teams working behind the scenes to eliminate the jobs of others without them knowing it is coming. They want to string everyone along right until the moment they don't need you anymore instead of telling them in advance so they can prepare and seek other opportunities.
Wells Fargo has a rotten culture that started shortly after Scharf took over.
I too question Rubb_r Ch__kie. He lays people off with a smile.
You assume a lot of things, and really shouldn't. I never said I didn't care about the things you mention, I said that the misery that was once limited to one part of the bank is now a different kind of misery for every employee. Retaliation for fighting the man didn't leave with former CEOs either. In other news, the company is decidedly more racist now than under previous regimes. The company also routinely discriminates against customers based on their business type more than we ever did before. The 401k matching plan got worse with the change to annual matching.
Honestly, I was supportive of the new regime for quite some time but they've made it impossible to continue with that. Now I'm just waiting for them to leave so, hopefully, things will get better. Is chuck the worst? No, but he's not good either.
Ok so under the previous regime you don’t care that our customers were ripped off, you don’t care that the good employees trying to stop it were retaliated against, you just didn’t care because you were not impacted…
Makes sense then that you miss the old regime who loved employees like you without morals
Stumpf is a classic example of the "peter principle" - he rose to his level of gross incompetence. Sloan wasn't much better. Incompetent at best and likely criminal.
That's like 3 people out of a quarter million, and sure, it probably sucked for them...now it sucks for everyone. Progress?
Well except for the fact that any employee who tried to blow the whistle on the fraud against our customers was severely retaliated against under the watch of Stumpf and Sloan…
Yes
Say what you want about any former CEO, I never got the vibe from them that they hate the company and its employees.
Wait until you hear about Stumpf and Sloan
I will take Charlie any day over those 2 crooks