Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

@ay I was hired at a time when WF was struggling to fill positions and offered a premium compensation package, including a severance policy that was a meaningful part of the overall employment decision. I accepted that offer in good faith with the expectation that, if I performed my job and remained committed to the company, WF would honor the terms and commitments that helped make that decision worthwhile. I was even planning to retire with the company.
I understand that severance is not an entitlement, and I have no issue with WF changing its policy for future hires. That’s the company’s prerogative. But changing the rules years later for employees who already made career decisions based on the original package is a very different matter.

If employees had known at the time that WF would later reduce that benefit, many of us could have made a different, more informed choice about where to build our careers. That’s the issue—not expecting something we didn’t earn, but expecting the company to deal fairly with people who accepted its offer, showed up, did the work, and held up their end of the bargain.

Change the terms for new hires if you must. But changing a significant part of the deal after employees have already committed their careers to the company feels less like responsible business management and more like moving the goalposts after the game has started.

Employees who acted in good faith deserve the same consideration from their employer.

It is kind of funny how the people that need severance least (executives making millions) get the most, whole those who need it most (people making $20/he that have minimal savings) get the least. I'm a capitalist myself, but golden parachutes should probably be banned. If you're making tens of millions per year and you can't secure your own financial future, you deserve to go broke more than anyone.

I remember that when Wachovia merged, a spreadsheet was sent out on how much severance you got when laid off. It was a graph with salary on one side, and years of service on the other. Based on that it showed anywhere from 2 to 18 months of severance (those who made more $$$ got more time in general).

Wells Fargo has been 2 weeks per year worked since I started over 2 decades ago. It was not changed in 2017 (unless like other have said it was a Wachovia hold over, but former wachovia now just falls under the WF policy of course).

Regardless, yes they can change the policy.

@cd that's absolutely incorrect. The legacy Wachovia table/schedule was reduced to the current one in 2018 under pressure from the regulators.

The legacy Wachovia schedule had a maximum payout of 24 months and the current one was capped at 12 months. It resulted in significant reductions for long tenured employees.

They can (and have done so) change policies at will

Of course they can, the board votes on topics annually and this was a huge cost saver to reduce severance. Pay attention to documentation when it’s time to vote as a shareholder.

The vote is not part of a union negotiation, there is nothing for an employee to sign agreeing to the reduction. It is what it is.

Wachovia tied severance to officer title, which was great for a lot of people, but Wells Fargo has been 2 weeks per year of service for over a decade.

That is only partially true. However, ERISA requires a plan to specify a procedure for amending the plan and who has authority to amend it. According to the Dept of Labor, when a material plan change occurs, there are disclosure requirements concerning a Summary of Material Modification (SMM). The Department of Labor explains that an SMM describes modifications to the plan and generally must be furnished within the applicable ERISA timeframe.

I had a countersigned full time telecommute agreement as part of my new employee paperwork in 2016, ask me how that's going these days 😂 if it's not a legal contract, it don't mean sh-t, they can change policy at will at any time without notice, your only recourse if you don't like it is to quit

Severance is not a mandated or vested benefit. You get it solely at the "generosity" of the company. They can adjust it or end it at any time at their sole discretion.

The only thing required by law is that the company follow WARN for communication to workers (generally a 60 day notice). That only applies to sizeable layoffs in most markets. There are a few states that have laws about notice and final pay.

Because the company already pays employees for 60 days following notice of layoff, they are generally covered. But they don't have to give you a dime beyond that

If WF wants to change or end severance, they can do that at any time and just update the Benefits Book by publishing a SMM (summary of material modifications). There's no entitlement.

Yeah but it was capped at 1 year too