Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Are they doing bi-weekly layoffs just to get around WARN?

Feels shady. Is that even legal?

by
| 1681 views | | 10 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1jxenf9n4

10 replies (most recent on top)

Yes. You will be released on any given day. I have released on non pay weeks already, so it’s just not off pay week. RJ

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @fk+1jxenf9n4

It's not just every other Tuesday, now it could be Wed or Thurs

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dq+1jxenf9n4

Publishing the public WARN notice the same day employees are notified is 60 day notice. laying off every two weeks doesn't "get around" WARN - the notice period is WARN compliant.

If you look up the origins of WARN, it came about because large companies that dominated employment in relatively small towns/cities would just close up a location/factory or the entire company with no notice. Employees showed up at work and didn't have a job, and there was no such thing as severance. WARN says an employer that is laying off more than 100 people it must give 60 days notice and pay for 60 days.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dp+1jxenf9n4

What is the number for efficiency rating that they are after?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bx+1jxenf9n4

they are aiming for 10% reduction per year, 5% layoffs and 5% everything else

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bm+1jxenf9n4

They're doing biweekly layoffs to attain their "efficiency" goals. Google is your friend.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bj+1jxenf9n4

@ag WARN act was 1988, layoffs likely since 1847.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bg+1jxenf9n4

they aren't getting around anything, everyone gets 60 days notice of being laid off or 90 days in the places that require it. it just so happens that for most, the 60 days notice in non work

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bf+1jxenf9n4

maybe you should google the law before asking ignorant questions

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b9+1jxenf9n4

It looks like they've been doing layoffs for almost decades.
https://www.warntracker.com/company/wells-fargo

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ag+1jxenf9n4

Post a reply

: