Thread regarding Charles Schwab Corp. layoffs

@123 Against TOU. They used code that's generally understood by insiders. Most are STS. Tiny and Menace are CTO and CIO. Next is cloud manager, I think. Not a common nickname, but his last name works for it. Not sure who is Teddy. Says is obvious, as is the last one.

It's just a pay problem. Schwab isnt competitive, people come in at higher levels than they should to make up for it.

Probably an unpopular opinion but this sort of title inflation is rampant across industries but especially in finance. And I don't give a sh*t about it. I do not understand why people get so bent up about it.

In a lot of finance, it is the Vice President title. Joe Nobody who just started his career is a VP. Why? Because it signals expertise to clients. Clients don't want to work with Joe Nobody. They want a VP. SVP even better. So this sort of title inflation started in client facing roles, and has moved across the industry.

At Schwab it's Directors and Managing Directors. Most 'Managers' and 'Senior Managers' aren't managing people either, but they are hard workers who expect a title that reflects their (perceived, fairly or not) value. Who cares, really, what it is, when the entire firm uniformly gives these titles to ICs?

Enshitification I mean Enschwabification to the Nth degree. I've never seen this is other companies I've worked.

@mw The day Rick brings positive change to this firm which primarily benefits anyone besides shareholders will be the day He-l freezes over. He’s here to cut costs and pump up the share price, but when it all comes falling down, they’ll somehow find a way to blame everyone except Rick.

Why are there managers when they don’t manage anyone? Why are there MDs reporting to MDs?
It’s another massive failure of the HR dept at Schwab. Just like Total Rewards is inconsistent amongst employees in the same role and level.
HR creates more issues than it benefits this firm…Rick needs to make change.

Each level, whether it's manager, sr. manager, director include people leaders and individual contributors. The only level that requires a certain number of directs is managing director. In the past, Schwab directors were ICs and managing directors were PLs (no matter how many directs you had). That changed after 2018. The level reflects the level of work and accountability. Should every person just be an "associate" forever unless they "manage" someone? If a Sr. Manager is an IC, what are they "managing"? It is like this at EVERY firm. It's not exclusive to Schwab. Not defending the names of levels, but just pointing out it's been like this everywhere.

@e6 Architects and DEs aren’t the problem. It’s Tiny, Menace, Flac1d, Teddy, Says, Ramabama and others. They ignore concerns and blame anyone but themselves. Public cloud failed like PaaS. Hired experts, including one from AWS, then conspired to replace within months when they refused to approve previous poor decisions. Over budget, missed deadlines, and then changed direction. Again.

Almost all the architects and distinguished architects in sts are below average
Why do they get paid so much?

It’s a ploy to enable corporate nepotism while also obscuring accountability. Outside hires bring over all of their friends, and then the multiple layers of MDs make it impossible to pin the blame on anyone when sh-t hits the fan. Spoiler warning; Sh-t hits the fan here constantly, but heads never roll.

The Director with one direct report, and the direct report has no direct reports. Classic!

What exactly are you directing?

@as I think you missed OP’s point.

Titles are a recruiting issue as financial companies make everyone a VP. We now have Principal, but used to have Technical VP and TD. Just call everyone Shirley. Focus on total comp.

Is a Principal (60, 61) overpaid? No. Some are. But most make market for their skills (STS). In other firms they'd be SVPs.