#transparency

why is no leader or HR disclosing CIT aip bonus amounts isnt this an employee right? in past years they shared bonus and increase at same time. now more and more blow offs for staff who have to stay. does anyone know for centerwell? all HR can say is payroll b paid april 17 payroll A paid april 24.

What are you hiding Dan? Is BYOD+ smoke and mirrors? https://www.lightreading.com/finance/verizon-s-reporting-changes-investor-unfriendly-analyst

Just like improving quality. Don’t hold your breath suppliers, you have heard this before.

In recent years, Ford hasn't exactly had the greatest relations with its suppliers - at least, according to the Plante Moran North American Automotive OEM - Supplier Working Relations Index (WRI) Study - as it ranked next to last among all OEMs in both 2024 and 2025. Then, last summer, The Blue Oval altered its contracts as a way to offset the impacts of tariffs - forcing suppliers to sign more stringent terms, ditch the ability to opt out of their contracts each year, and in exchange, they received new business and tariff cost relief.

Now, Ford is aiming to improve its challenged relations with suppliers, according to Crain's Detroit Business. At an annual event held late last month, Ford supply chief Liz Door reportedly told the company's suppliers that The Blue Oval intends to begin providing them with a three-year outlook for its vehicle plans, a move aimed at helping suppliers better plan for future launches, production volumes, and discontinuations.

This is a notable change given the fact that Ford suppliers have spent the last few years essentially not knowing what the automaker was planning to do, amid many powertrain strategy shifts - and it also signals that the automaker is more confident in its forthcoming plans as well. Additionally, Ford is launching what Door calls a “two-way scorecard” and a “help desk,” which are intended to “simplify and accelerate problem resolution” for suppliers.

“In response to supplier feedback, and as part of ongoing efforts to enhance transparency and strengthen trust, we plan to work closely with suppliers so they can optimize their own planning,” Door said. “This approach has the potential to simplify processes and drive improvements in overall quality, benefiting both Ford and our supplier network. Strengthening supplier relationships remains a core focus for Ford."

2025 10-K just published on SEC.gov. See for yourself, page 82 for executive compensation.

PP - $28M
AM - $21M
KC - $22M
DC - $19M
KJ - $21M
FL - $21M

$132M among 6 people. Unreal.

Paisner v. Tan, Del. Ch., No. 2026-0307
Paisner v. Tan is a shareholder derivative action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 5, 2026, seeking to void an "extortionary" deal involving a 10% stake in Intel Corporation sold to the U.S. government.
Case Overview
Plaintiff: Richard D. Paisner, an Intel shareholder represented by Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP and GM Law.
Defendants: Lip-bu Tan (Intel director), other Intel board members, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and the Department of Commerce.
Core Allegation: The lawsuit alleges that Intel's board was coerced into issuing approximately 10% (9.9%) of its equity to the Department of Commerce (DOC) for "no meaningful consideration" following public demands from President Donald Trump.
Key Legal Arguments
The complaint, which was partially unsealed on March 11, 2026, asserts several grounds for invalidating the transaction:
Lack of Congressional Authority: The suit argues that only Congress can authorize a federal agency to become a partial owner of a publicly traded company, and no such law exists for this transaction.
Extortion and Coercion: It alleges the board succumbed to "well-founded fears" regarding personal and professional relationships after President Trump publicly claimed CEO Lip-bu Tan was conflicted and should be fired.
Illegal Voting Agreements: The deal reportedly included provisions requiring the government to vote its 9.9% stake as directed by the Intel board and pledged government support for sitting directors. The plaintiff argues this created a conflict of interest by providing directors with a unique benefit not shared by other shareholders.
Pretextual Funding: The complaint claims the government demanded the shares as a "pretextual advancement" of funds Intel had already earned under a 2024 CHIPS Act agreement.
The case was initially filed under seal on March 5, 2026, and unsealed on March 11, 2026, with certain confidential information redacted. The plaintiff seeks an order canceling the deal and unspecified damages.
Bloomberg Law News

Both Drum and Derek A have gone under the radar, cancelling meetings.

Obvious they are going to get a barrage of pay questions which they have been lying about all year.

Anyone know why Denise is leaving as CFO? Concerning as I felt her financial transparency was refreshing.

Bro, if you’re going to make this an ‘ask me anything’ type of event. Grow a pair and answer the top question, don’t have your staff delete it and pretend it didn’t happen.

laid off and cigna sends us to a help desk in india if we have issues? zero transparency , zero accountability . what a joke of a company CIGNA EVERNORTH

The HR IT Team is currently in the process of migrating the RTO Badge Tracking tool from a Tableau report to a full-fledged internal web app.

They are working with Jeff's org CTXO to use Gen AI to do this more rapidly then they'd be capable of doing otherwise.

Once this migration is complete, they will have complete turnstile API access and plan to start showing badge in & badge out times. Currently, managers who have access to the tool can only see whether or not you were in office that day, at home, or took PTO.

These are the facts. My personal speculation, after witnessing how gung-ho this team is about this effort, is that they are going to add a lot more than just time-tracking to the app. I believe that the next thing to go will be the "Half Day PTO" trick that many of us use to have WFH days or manage things like home repairs, doctors appts, etc. Currently, they don't have the access they need from Workday to differentiate between Full Day & Half Day PTO, so they just count it all as In-Office.

I believe that we are in for a very dark year ahead regarding RTO. Leaking this info now so people can plan ahead and stay informed.

Questions for HR reading this.

1. Are they planning on doing a mass layoff of remote employees?

2. Is there any truth to the shift of sending more positions overseas?

3. What are we not being told?

These people are trained to talk for hours without saying anything. And it absolutely grates on me when they wrap bad news in sickly sweet language. What's the point? It reads like a horror story instead of easing anything. Just fuels more frustration. I'm still waiting for the day I meet someone who's just straightforward.

(A message from the very tired Paul Revere of HR)

Greetings, Esteemed Anonymous Contributors,

We at BNY Mellon are delighted — truly delighted — to discover this vibrant digital community dedicated to spirited discussions about our organizational “evolutionary workforce optimization cycles” (a phrase we prefer over the less nuanced term layoffs).

While we typically communicate through carefully curated press releases and town halls where no one answers questions, today we bravely venture into the wild frontier of anonymous internet forums to “set the record straight.”

First, we want to assure you that we absolutely, unequivocally, categorically do not monitor this site. We would never assign interns to track sentiment, #hashtag labels categorize emotional volatility, or flag posts containing the words “reorg,” “offshoring,” or “my manager hasn’t made eye contact in three weeks.” Any suggestion that we do so is purely speculative and frankly flattering. We appreciate the vote of confidence in our operational capabilities.

Now, regarding the persistent rumors of layoffs:

We hear you.
We value you.
We appreciate your passion for rumor‑based fearmongering and forecasting.

But let us be clear: layoffs at BNY Mellon are not “layoffs.” They are strategic talent recalibrations designed to ensure we remain competitive in a rapidly evolving financial ecosystem. Think of it like pruning a tree — except the tree is you, and the pruning shears are held by someone who has never met you but has strong opinions about your cost‑to‑productivity ratio.

Some of you have expressed concern that these recalibrations seem to occur annually, quarterly, monthly or whenever the stock price declines a tick or the EC gets bored. We assure you this is not the case. Our workforce decisions are guided by a sophisticated algorithm that considers dozens of factors, including market conditions, operational efficiency, and whether your department head recently attended a conference about Eliza, AI investment and Build'26 automation. All neatly tied to your stretch 2026 Workday performance objectives which you are guaranteed not to meet.

We also want to address the perception that leadership communications lack transparency. This is simply not true. Our leaders are deeply committed to transparency, as demonstrated by their frequent use of phrases like “we’re on a journey,” “we’re transforming,” and “we’re excited about the future.” If you find these statements vague, that is because true transparency requires a certain level of abstraction. We cannot reveal everything — not because we don’t trust you, but because we don’t want to spoil the surprise ending.

Some users here have suggested that morale is low. We find this surprising, given our robust suite of employee engagement initiatives, including:

• Mandatory town halls and BK Live events with your favorite EC team
• Mandatory RTO days with no WFH or controlled WFA days
• Mandatory mindfulness webinars held during lunch
• Emails reminding you to take PTO while simultaneously increasing your workload
• Town halls where questions are pre‑screened to ensure no one accidentally asks something real
• Leadership videos filmed in front of abstract art to symbolize “innovation”
• Free donut Thursdays and of course our deliciously brewed coffee and Kool-Aid!

We believe these initiatives demonstrate our unwavering commitment to your well‑being.

We also want to dispel the myth that offshoring is replacing domestic roles. This is a misunderstanding. We are not replacing roles — we are globalizing opportunities. If your job responsibilities now reside in another hemisphere, consider it a testament to your influence. You have gone international and are now deemed export-worthy.

Finally, we’d like to address the recurring theme that BNY Mellon prioritizes profits over people. This is a mischaracterization. We value people immensely — especially the ones who help us achieve profits. Without profits, how could we continue investing in the technologies that allow us to reduce the number of people we need? It’s a beautiful, self‑sustaining cycle of innovation and involuntary career mobility.

In closing, we thank you for your continued engagement, even if it occurs on a social media platform we definitely do not read. Your feedback is invaluable, your dedication is inspiring, and your speculation is… spirited.

Please remember:

We are all in this together — though some of us are in it more temporarily than others.

Warmest corporate regards,
BNY Mellon (Hypothetically and Definitely not Legally)

Events are happening around the company, yet nobody is talking and sharing information. How are we not doing this?

On the Beat, seeing some red faces trying to sell these budget restraints.

Amid financial and reputational turmoil, top executives at UnitedHeath Group have promised to bring more transparency. A new reporting policy from the health care giant is doing the opposite.

This week, UnitedHealth listed just 10 subsidiaries in its annual report, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A year ago, the company disclosed nearly 3,100.

The math ain’t mathing!

Whomever has up to date information, spill it. You are doing a service to your colleagues who are all in this together. Those who have been kind enough in leadership positions to share have helped tremendously. Don't gatekeep if you know something. This is the power that employees have...

https://www.marketscreener.com/news/attention-long-term-five9-inc-fivn-shareholders-grabar-law-office-investigates-claims-on-your-b-ce7e5cd9d98cf025

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--(Newsfile Corp. - February 26, 2026) - Grabar Law Office is investigating claims on behalf of long-term Five9, Inc. (NASDAQ: FIVN) shareholders as an underlying securities fraud class action complaint has survived a motion to dismiss. The investigation concerns whether certain officers of the company have breached their fiduciary duties they owed to the company.

If you have held Five9 (NASDAQ: FIVN) shares continuously since prior to June 4, 2024, you can seek corporate reforms, the return of funds back to the Company, and a court approved incentive award at no cost you whatsoever. Visit https://grabarlaw.com/the-latest/five9-shareholder-investigation/, contact Joshua H. Grabar at jgrabar@grabarlaw.com, or call 267-507-6085 to learn more.

WHY? A federal securities fraud class action was filed against Five9 and two of its Officers has survived a motion to dismiss. That Complaint alleges that Five9 (NASDAQ: FIVN), through certain of its officers, misrepresented the purported strength of the Company's net new business bookings and visibility into its installed customer base, and that when these statements were made, Five9 was in the throes of a "challenging bookings quarter" due to constrained and scrutinized customer budgets and sales execution issues, forcing the Company to cut its annual revenue guidance and take remedial action to address sales execution issues.

On February 23, 2026, a federal court determined, among other things, that "plaintiffs allege with particularity that defendants knew, and failed to disclose, that Five9 was performing below its own projections and expectations in the first half of 2024." Evidence presented is sufficient for plaintiffs to plead that certain of Defendants' statements about the strength of Five9's sales, including that "the net new side of our business is very strong" and "we are seeing very strong bookings momentum on the net new side," were false or misleading, and plaintiffs allege with particularity that defendants' June 2024 statements about macro factors were false or misleading. Plaintiffs further established a strong inference of deliberate recklessness or intent to deceive with respect to certain false and misleading statements.

There are now even more SEC filings showing our leaders are dumping even more stock. They keep telling us that we're one team and that we need to sacrifice while at the same time they are selling millions of dollars worth of stock. A huge Fu-k You to the employees.

The real issue isn’t just layoffs, it’s trust.

When cuts happen and communication feels vague, people lose confidence fast. Add tighter return-to-office rules on top of that, and it can feel like control is going up while security is going down.

WFH flexibility isn’t just a perk. It’s a signal. It says: “We trust you to deliver.” Being super prescriptive with attendance dashboards and badge monitoring sends the opposite message.

If leadership wants to retain the best talent, they must listen actively to the needs of the incoming generations who are screaming to balance their life needs better then previous generations. It comes down to a few basics:

• Be clear about what’s happening and why
• Be consistent between words and actions
• Trust people to do their jobs
• Push the flexibility policy more and stand behind it

Layoffs test culture. Culture eats all strategy (even the best ones designed by DW). Flexibility and transparency are how this company will succeed or fail. It’s too late for me because I made my decision so I leave this for the new hires coming in to witness.

Your move, DW

They're treating layoffs like classified information, and it's only making us more anxious. No idea which areas were hit, how many people were affected, or when the cuts will end. Great. A little transparency would go a long way, but apparently that's too much to ask.

The lack of transparency is jarring. We’re constantly left in the dark, never told what’s happening, even when it directly impacts us. I hate it.

Layoffs appear to have resumed at the Celle Technology Center. Unfortunately, there is no transparency regarding the scale of these reductions or the strategic path forward. It is disappointing to see the Works Council remain so quiet; At the very least, don’t they have a responsibility to inform the people they represent!

Why do we never let people know who have left or has been laid off. Everything is one big secret. Maybe its different in other divisions but here in our schools division, communication is a joke. Then you expect us to believe that as managers you didnt have a say in or even knew who they were gonna let go. Well if my name is on the departure list, know I am going to tell everyone. I have asked for weeks and have been told the same line by each person I asked. Almost word for word. Like it was scripted. Buckle up, its gonna be a real intersting day. #Projectconverge

I sat in a meeting with a manager where they literally told us no layoffs coming. Not two weeks later, people were getting cut. What is even the point of these meetings anymore? The whole culture is just fear now. You can't trust a word that comes out of their mouths.

We’ve all seen the latest email: a hard push toward a few "preferred suppliers" (mostly the large Indian MNCs) and a mandate to move away from our niche partners.

Reading between the lines, this looks like a forced transition from FTEs to a contractor dominant model. But is there actually a strategy here, or is this just another way to cook the books?

A few things that don't add up:

The "Recycling" Loop: I’m hearing reports that these preferred vendors are just hiring back former colleagues and charging us a markup.

Quality vs. Cost: The feedback on these specific providers has been bottom-tier. Moving from specialized niche experts to "volume" contractors usually results in technical debt that costs more to fix later.

Compliance or Convenience? Is "inappropriate reporting" (or lack of transparency) from these big firms being ignored just because they make the balance sheet look "leaner" by reducing official headcount?

What’s the real "idea" behind this? Is it just about shifting liability and hitting a "variable cost" target for the next earnings call, or is there any long-term plan to maintain the quality of our output?

Curious to hear from others who have transitioned to these providers. Are you seeing a drop in quality, or is this "recycling" of old employees as widespread as it sounds?

I’m not unsure how this new “keep asking” campaign is going to help us in PGIM. I do hope employees “keep asking” what on earth is going on with this company.

"I want to be fully clear and transparent on the great place to work programme"

doesn't mention that Cisco buys their way to the top
Ok

Before the salary range was said, now there some verbiage leading you to nowhere.
https://fordcareers.co/LL6

Base Salary is determined based on candidate skills and experience bla bla bla and bla bla bla competitive market value.

It reminds me the interview joke, trust me, my skills are awesome.

Thoughts on the latest AMA? Felt very avoidant and not full answers.

Transparency != "We will tell you more in 'current_date'+30". Maybe find a new buzz word, as this is anything but transparent.

I wanted to ask for some clarification regarding the recent changes in Teams and the organizational view. Previously, it clearly showed the team I’ve worked with consistently, but now when I look at my organization, it lists many different names I’m not familiar with. I understand that organizational structures can evolve, but the sudden change without context feels confusing. Can someone please explain what these updates reflect and whether they indicate a shift in team alignment, reporting structure, or workflow? I believe transparency helps everyone stay informed and aligned, and I would appreciate any insight you can provide.

Remember the Pay for Performance statement? Them were the days! You could see well in advance your AIP and the date it was being deposited. At this point so far into February, I am not even sure we are getting AIP this year. And no, trolls, I am not betting the farm on AIP or planning on a single cent. I just realized we had not received it yet and in the good old days we always had it first week of February. RIP Pay for Performance statement, I made fun of you at the time, but now I realize you were actually good transparency. Don't even get me started on the olden era of quarterly profit sharing. I am still going down with this ship, but have to marvel nearly daily how Good to Great has gone from Great to Ghastly.

There seem to constantly be rumors going around about layoffs but how long it's been since we actually had a confirmed round? It's been a while. I understand being scared and worried but I just wish we could get some concrete info instead of people just fear-guessing.

I tried bringing it up and got shot down immediately. That’s frustrating, because if compensation is off-limits, there’s no way to know who’s being underpaid, and I’m guessing it’s more common than people think.

Year after year, we see the same pattern: failed decisions, failed projects, failed products, failed initiatives, failed policies. The outcomes are consistent — underperformance and disruption.

Yet the accountability is not.

Senior leaders are rarely, if ever, held responsible for these failures. Instead, rank-and-file employees absorb the consequences — blamed, terminated, or laid off while the architects of these poor decisions remain untouched.

How does this culture persist? When poor judgment repeatedly goes unchecked at the top, it raises serious questions about governance, transparency, and whether advancement is based on merit or internal favoritism.

Failure at Dell has become all too systemic — and predictable.

I’m going to say what a lot of people are thinking but no one is saying out loud.

Why is “CAP” suddenly being mentioned in almost every group meeting lately?

We’re repeatedly told “it’s not a bad thing,” but historically, CAP has been used as documentation that leads to performance write-ups and eventually layoffs. So let’s be honest—what exactly changed, and why the sudden focus now?

It’s hard not to notice the pattern. The targets keep moving, expectations keep increasing, and the goals feel more and more disconnected from the reality of the actual workload. The people setting these expectations aren’t the ones doing the job every day, under the same pressure, with the same volume, and the same constraints.

At some point, calling it “support” while simultaneously increasing pressure starts to feel less like development and more like positioning.

People deserve honesty, not reassurance that doesn’t align with what they’re experiencing in real time.

So I’ll ask directly:
Is this truly about helping employees improve, or is this the early stage of workforce reduction being framed differently?

Transparency matters. People can handle the truth. What’s hard to handle is feeling managed out while being told everything is fine.

I know my success at Verizon or any job was attitude and adaptation. It was also how quickly I could get good at the next challenge and make the changes I needed that would help me win. Sounds easy, but it requires a full buy-in and positive mindset. So far, what has changed? Are we sold on the direction and does leadership value our buy-in? I think transparency is a key to moving forward and calming fears. I don't think this leadership team has shown anything of the sort. It's easy to tell a future failed leader by both actions and inaction. If the entire team isn't on board then "you ain't winning". We are lost and a plan hasn't even been clearly laid out for our success. Again, the company is trying to do this without us. Only when we are a team and valued will we succeed. Hate to break the news... we are still not valued. They count on us to do the lifting but don't give us reason, respect or credit. When the employees are here for more than a paycheck you win. When we are here for the team and to help Verizon win then we will become a different company. When leadership fights FOR us and makes US first then and only then will Verizon change and become a leader. This leader failed in his first message and it's been downhill from there.

So… saw the big LinkedIn splash about the CXO Leadership Summit.

Thought we were tightening spend on these things? Especially while we’re laying people off and talking about cost discipline.

Genuine question —
• What was the actual outcome of this summit?
• How much did we spend hosting hundreds of “leaders”?
• What measurable business value came out of it?

Feels a bit tone-deaf when teams are being asked to do more with less.

Would be good to see some transparency and accountability here.

https://www.hcamag.com/ca/news/general/ibms-internal-spreadsheets-expose-systematic-bonus-denial-cost-682k/564914

We all know that there is clearly a lot more being kept under wraps and hidden away behind the blue curtain