A consultant with attorneys would gain traction if they were able to determine how many “needs improvements” were handed out in prior years vs 2025 reviews. If the number increased dramatically, then can’t an argument be made that this is their attempt to term employees for they don’t have to pay out severance? I know a person who has been with the company over 20 years and never received an NI before until this year.
15 replies (most recent on top)
@d6 just curious... have you asked AI how to get a job given your age and skills? ask it what you need to learn to get a job in today's market.
I would think this would be a difficult case to prove intent. There could be lots of reasons for more NI’s given - a forced ranking scale where a certain number have to fall into that bucket, or moving to a new group or to a new manager where the expectations/standards are higher. I’ve been in leadership positions where I’ve inherited employees who always received a meets, but I did not see them consistently demonstrate that performance, despite coaching and help on my part. It’s nothing nefarious, they’re just held to higher standards and didn’t meet them after given the chance.
I am @d6 and a 62 white female. I was married young in the 80s poor economy. We both had mostly min wage jobs. I went to college 42 to 50 because I was getting no where despite many years experience. I needed to prove I could. I got cheated out of pay and bonuses. Every role I moved to they changed compensation downward after I applied. When I got the promotion I was unable to afford to pay extra on my student loan like I should. Now I am unemployed and salaries are worse because of market. Not going to lie, I did a lot of stupid spending at times (shopping through depression then donations). I was main income earner and had to keep up my home, unexpected events and medical bills. We did not come from money...We have worked hard our entire life and raised kids to have a nice home and cars because we didnt growing up. I fully expected to work to full retirement, earn big bonuses, pay off debt, like most my peers because I was loyal, and dedicated to my career. I grew up in a time when parents worked hard blue collar jobs their whole lives and provided for their household not get rich or send their kids to college. I am sharing for my sanity as therapy. It is hard to see how WF has destroyed so many livlihoods with the corporate greed. Many of you will never understand the boomer generation and how many did not grow up with the opportunity to a go to college after high-school or the skills or ability to create wealth.
@d6
In my situation, the ageism seemed fairly blatant. 28 years of meets or exceeds and I was still laid off - while hiring younger workers months beforehand. HR at WF is useless for the employees, it's there to protect the company by telling employees there's nothing there and basically you're imaging it. Yeah, no.
I do plan to see an attorney near the end of my severance and see what happens...
@d6 how old are you? I m 42 and hope they don't get me with age discrimination...
@d6 its nobody else's fault that you have been in the workforce for 17+ years and still have massive student loan debt.
@d6 that su-ks and you pretty much described my situation. 17 years, worked my way up from $40k, etc.
Some sad times.
Good luck on your next move.
@ac is correct. Proving and documenting it will be difficult. And costly. When you get laid off you don't feel you have the $ to pay for employment attorneys.
Hey there everyone..I was termed after 17 yrs on performance and IT WAS NOT on RTO, 8 hr office requirements, coffee badging, quiet quitting or lack of ability or interest. It was a targeted plan to force me out with subjective unprofessional performance review and made up metrics all in mgrs control. 17 yrs of progressive upward promotions that took me from 35 k to 150 k and performance reviews with great results. There was no way I would have created a reason to be fired. I was main income earner and have a huge student loan ti pay. I did not have a chance to make things right because yes, Charlie pushed this agenda but, managers are being dishonest to meet quotas over budget demands for results. HR did not help, my pleading only stopped the harrassment but in the end the motion was in place and the decision was final. I have applied for 100s of jobs and age discrimination is real. With the rise of AI and economy mgrs want younger or overseas people at lower wages. Its all greed.
If we want to be an AI driven IT bank you will have to get rid of the AI slop people. People who are not willing to adapt to technology will be let go. Resistance is futile. Customers expect digital banking. Current ad campaign is based on this. Expect more AI metrics to be introduce into the KPI of managers and leads.
Lots of companies do this and its perfectly legal. Of course if you're a minority you can always cry racism and see what happens but for everyone else they can give you a bad evaluation and get rid of you for whatever reason they want.
Again, more wrong info. I was in management and WF did not always do ratings on a curve with forced stacked ranking. This was a process that was implemented when Charlie came in, but was initially put on the back burner with Covid. Location strategy was another thing that was implemented when he came in, along with the requirement for managers to have more direct reports and the removal of aligned bonus percentages with role and caps on internal increases for promotions. Things started to ramp up with enforcement around 2023 to displace people with severance. Y'all do realize that WF has displaced over $70k people right?! That is not normal and all of these things were put into motion to get rid of people. Charlie actually said that was a goal when he first came in.
What is happening now, is that WF no longer wants to pay out severance and this is why you are seeing an increase in IM and NI, which will be linked to stringent office reporting that will be difficult for a lot of people to meet. Unfortunately, nothing can be done because most states are at will and severance is a benefit that is not required by law. However, to prevent litigation, if terminated and it's tied to work hours/day in office reporting, they can just tie everything in a bow as cause for termination. No case. Sad, but true. However, you will always have a case for employment discrimination (age, race, etc). But those cases are always hard to prove without real, documented evidence.
If someone was with the company 20 years and genuinely never had a IM or NI, then that individual may have a case of age discrimination.
Across the board there haven't been that many more than prior years though (as a percentage). WFC has always done ratings on a curve and the percentage of sub-meets is calibrated. That said, imposing quotas on ratings does create perverse incentives. Wouldn't surprise me if there are pockets of shadiness to meet the quotas. Proving it will be very difficult. Plus, even the IM and NI get "severance" just to avoid a potential lawsuit.
Same bell curve as last few years.
Just sounds like more of this site due to the number of disgruntled people who post here
A majority of the IM ratings were due to RTO noncompliance. You can’t really lawyer your way out of that when it the policy is in writing and explicitly clear.