This seems to be discrimination - if the the employee is a great fit for the position why couldn't/shouldn't they be allowed to self-locate?
If an external job seeker that must move to a core market then why can't an employee?
This REALLY smells.
10 replies (most recent on top)
It is not discrimination.
Some positions are being eliminated due to expense reduction. That may also correspond with location strategy. For positions that are being eliminated for expense reduction, the position goes away. Managers can't backfill. That is why they don't want you to move. You would move and then be displaced.
For positions that are not part of efficiency exercises, a determination will be made as to whether the person currently in the role should be considered as part of the long term solution at Wells. If so, they will most likely be offered a relocation package. If not, they will be displaced. In short, if you aren't on the list for people they want to build around they don't want to go through the hassle and expense of offering relocation. you will simply be displaced.
There are considerations around which location in a metro market you may eventually be assigned to. Some metro areas are massive. You might move to the suburbs at a core location and yet still be outside the 40-mile distance to your assigned location. In that situation, you would have moved for no reason and you end up being displaced.
Finally, if you move early you would forfeit any financial compensation that would come had you received a relo package.
Far from being discriminatory, the policy is designed to protect you from making a poor decision. I am not happy at all with the RTO policy. I will be displaced after many, many years of working successfully at the bank. Lots of things that I'm upset about. But this is one area where I think they are handling it correctly. Be patient. Wait to see what happens.
@rlh+1rnpOqhU - I live in an area that is not part of the re-location strategy. In an interview for a position in AZ I was told that I was the best candidate but I could not self re-locate. They released me from the interview.
The position was open, I received the go-forward, the offer was rescinded due to location, I offered self re-location, and I was rejected. Feels like discrimination.
What you smell is 'quiet cutting'.
If the point is to reduce headcount, then hiring someone else in a different city is unnecessary, it wouldn't achieve the alleged objective and is a waste of company resources.
Because the whole point of layoffs is to decrease overall headcount, not relocate everyone. Once they lay someone off, they can decide to either never replace that person, replace with someone in I&P, backfill with someone in a core location, etc.
What discrimination card are you playing?
You shouldn't relocate w/out knowing if you'll have a slot when you get there. They could eliminate your position and you'd have moved for nothing.
Your job is probably posted in India. Feel free to relocate there but I heard it “smells” there too.
Lol
This feels like the thoughts in your head were not correctly translated by your fingers and I’m reading jibberish here.