Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

@1kur+1swSuIGr

So no one is lying, but they can't tell the truth because people wouldn't like it. Make up your mind.

The execs are CONSTANTLY lying, and it's undeniable.

"We have to RTO because we're better together!" No, that was phase 1 of a layoff strategy, and whaddya know, the next phase they decided that you "must" be fired because you're in the wrong building even though they decided what building you had to "return" to in the first place.

And how about the time that Shart claimed he'd never heard of any location strategy, even though literally every LOB announced theirs shortly thereafter and there is even an option for it as a reason for a person being termed in workday. And if you decide to just start working at an official hub for your group? Nope, not allowed, because it's a lie that it's about "location" at all.

We can also lump all the BS from Hudson Yards about how they offer clear career paths and options for advancement, when it's painfully obvious that what they care about is people leaving without severance. That's all they care about.

The executives keep telling us about efficiency. Is it efficient to close Boise and double down on NYC buildings/employees that are much more expensive? No, it's really not, which makes it really apparent that it's not about efficiency if it's an execs pet project.

And how about every press release they put out after larger layoffs that are made public? Where they always throw in the line that they make every effort to find roles for the impacted employees? It's obviously not true.

There's countless other examples if you pay attention. Do some other corporate hacks at other businesses tell similar lies? Sure, but that's no excuse for immoral behavior and it's completely hypocritical. If a plebe is doing things they shouldn't, would "well, plebes at other banks do it to!" ever be a viable justification? No, it wouldn't.

It's not victimhood to recognize the truth about our lying and immoral executives. These clowns are failed leaders. It's absolutely true that they could be honest about the entire process. I'd respect them a heck of a lot more even if I disagreed with their approach. What I won't respect is a no good liar, who talks about efficiency while giving himself and extra $5M in pay for no reason. These are people that would rather see you dead than pay a severance. Keep carrying their water if you want, but there's no need to attempt to shut down the truth.

Wells is rehiring former employees in all hub locations.

@1pwb+1swSuIGr Glad to see the misplaced anger runs deep in you.

No lies anywhere, just not the narrative you want. Everyone would be as po’d if it was said “we’re laying off all the people we should have decades ago after buying Wachovia, etc”. And I suppose you’re correct about the nepotism….if you put a plastic bag over your head and ignore all leadership employment history from every other large financial firm because you don’t understand how any of it works.

There is no win for anyone in this situation. FFS lose the victim mentality and make something of yourself.

If they don't want "angry and bitter" employees, maybe they should try not being insufferable A holes 24/7 to their people. Crazy thought, I know, but people wouldn't be bitter if HY wasn't putting out a constant stream of lies, BS justifications for firing people, practicing blatant nepotism with JPM Bros, and intentionally dragging the process out to make people miserable.

From what I've been reading on this forum, it would be a costly mistake to reapply. The company could lay you off again 6 months down the road, and you will have zero severance. A team lead told Me if you take another job with WFB after being laid off, you forfeit your severance money. Sounds like you want to stay. Sad truth is the company doesn't want us to stay.

They will not rehire you because your job went overseas

I actually side with HR (even though I was laid off).
Coming back will bring my baggage of being angry and bitter.
I think they are seeing a pattern.
Hire people who haven't seen the BS, switch and bait and so forth.
Can you blame them?

They will "unlikely" rehire you because we are all "bitter" about being laid off.
I was offered a position at WF but accepted another offer with a different company (aligned at the same time ironically). When HR asked for feedback, I stated "too much uncertainty with WF and the other offer was more recession proof." Should have just stated, I need to stay remote (even though new job isn't).

Like everything else in the corporate world, it is who you know.
Had a teammate do a lateral transition to a new team and the city he is from wasn't included in the posting. There are exceptions. I would go for it.

If the job is posted, it is fair game. But they certainly won’t hire you if not in the city they have it posted in. For example say you are in the Bay Area and job is listed in PHX or CLT. They won’t consider you except for those two cities and they will not pay for relocation in this case.

Si’

You are missing one big factor here. If there are people with the same skills, but one asks for $100K and another asks for $30K, which one do you think WF will hire? Why do you think many of the US jobs are being replaced by the Indians?