I wonder if people that post are misusing “layoff” and “termination” because the way people are writing, it sounds like we are back two years ago, where everybody was getting laid off and expecting huge severance packages, which I don’t think is the case anymore. I think layoffs with big severance packages are things in the past… But I could be wrong.
15 replies (most recent on top)
@d4 Strange that you claimed to ask a question but didn't use a question mark. Maybe your confusion is more about the English language than it's terms for ways to end employment.
If you don't want to be considered a troll, maybe you shouldn't parrot thinking that trolls have been pushing on this board for more than a year - that the severance benefit is going away.
@d7 “op” tried to make a point - people disagreed - carry on
@cw nope; op is a human being who- like many of us, come to this board to get information.
Since we’re all going through a lot of this together, it would be nice if people showed each other a little compassion and understanding; and many people do… Especially in this post; there’s some nice people… As my grandma used to say it doesn’t cost anything to be nice; and who knows, one day we all might need some niceness
@d4 You didn’t ask anything - you “wondered” if we knew the difference between a layoff and a termination - and that we are a new era of terminations. Everyone knows the difference. You are even conducive to the point where you can’t even comprehend what you wrote. It wasn’t a question.
@cw I have to add one more thing. I’m looking at some of the responses; and you would think I’ve committed some kind of crime by simply asking if people were confusing the two words. Don’t understand why people got so upset over a simple question… and rising to the level of insults does not seem to be in the spirit of this discussion board. Again, I asked a simple question
@ck at the risk being accused of posting too much (à la the first poster below), I will simply say thank you for clearing that up. I’ve been given a lot of misinformation.….and no, I am not an ex employee: I’ve been Wells Fargo for a few decades; and I’m hoping to be here for a while longer
@a2 FYI.not me… I’ve never posted before
@op is either paid to be wrong or, even worse, doing it for free.
@cn i know this isn't always true, but these really were low performers in this case. it was clear to everyone on the team. they caused charge-offs, messed up metrics, etc. they really didn't deserve severance.
@ck..BS on "low performers". That was planned by mgt for those they disliked, in hopes that their butt would not get cut. Disliked = smarter, older, tenured or not part of the gang.
@cc yep. several low performers were just laid off in my group. they could've all been fired for cause (without severance) but that approach would've taken a little longer (to get the second IM logged) so they ended up getting displaced (with severance). besides being faster in this case, another reason senior management allowed layoffs vs. firing is because it made it easy to say those people couldn't be back-filled. the lower-level managers involved may not have realized their back-fill requests would be denied until it was too late. but with all that said, firings for cause (without severance) are definitely still increasing. my group had some of those recently as well.
Layoffs with severance are still happening, but going forward managers have been told that they will be less common. Actual terminations, based on forced rankings, will be the more common go-forward tool to reduce headcount as in that case the company doesn't have to pay out severance. Not 100% one way or the other, they have just figured out an alternative to paying severance.
About 1600 have been downsized in the last 60 days, with severance, so it would appear that you are wrong op.
gotta get rid of the little peeps bc god forbid an exec has a perf issue and.....
I suspect you’re confused - you keep posting the same nonsense every few days. Are you a jilted ex employee who can’t let go?