if they finna layoff get it over with are they half done with the 10% reduction of the employees or is still more to let go?
11 replies (most recent on top)
Every time I see someone on LinkedIn that's so excited that they just got a job Wells, I just want to tell them that you will totally regret it. But I don't. It wouldn't a difference and who am I to say? Maybe you will have a successful experience, but I seriously doubt it. Good luck.
Rumor that I heard was that it was originally supposed to be 25k people getting cut.
But look at the transcript from Chuck's latest conference call with investors. He acknowledges that there's still around 50k to go to get to a goal of 200k people, in order to make efficiency numbers comparable to our competition.
So the math works out: 270k - 25k - 50k = 200k.
They're just getting started.
So far it appears to be only 16k less from Nov 2020, looks like we still got a ways to go if it's 10% from the starting number of almost 270k.
@1err+1czLjDQE. Well said
"You can't easily cut staff if systems aren't in place to handle reduced staff."
This is especially true if you hire corrupt tech execs (cough ravioli cough) who hire their buddy's ultra expensive consultant firms to outsource work to their incompetent and underpaid contractors. I worked on a team where this happened, and after the years-long contract was over we had successfully purged every single buggly line of code they had written, at a cost of millions for their contract plus probably another million to undo their damage.
During this time of course we were nearly incapable of delivering new functionality to the business without it being loaded with bugs.
Charlie should have fired everyone 3 down from him and started from scratch with a new team. The corruption at Wells is beyond measure, and that is a road that leads to only one destination.
The problem is these so called leaders are followers following previously failed policies at their other institutions.
The company needs a leader not a follower. Layoffs need to make sense, not hit a number just because that’s where other banks are. Follow the needs of the business instead. There are areas really hurting right now due to short sightedness. This is why morale is cr-p and Chuckles is so despised except by those making money off him. He-l cash out too shortly before the inevitable crash comes.
I get the feeling this will make Enron look like a freaking cookout when it comes.
252something
To be on par with competitors' staffing, WF needs to have no more than 190K-200K employees. Likely even less, given our lagging profits (due to scandal impacts, etc.). WF operational expense ratio is abysmal and it's a major focus for CS, BOD, and shareholders.
The problem is that competitors were able to reach those levels over time (layoffs, etc. over time) AND they reinvested $$profits$$ into digital/automation software and systems. In contrast, WF execs were greedy and chose to line their pockets instead.
BIG, SHORT-SIGHTED MISTAKE.
You can't easily cut staff if systems aren't in place to handle reduced staff.
Everyone knows this, which is why we're screwed.
Greed and hubris is why WF won't survive. WF will be sold off. It's just a matter of when. 3-5 years?
Haha, boy you don't know Charlie. Layoffs will literally never end. Everywhere he goes he's famous for aggressively cutting numbers and he does so over several years, he doesn't rip the band-aid off. As long as he's CEO you'll have to get used to operating in this environment
They need to cut more than 10%. Sell off entire businesses and Wells Fargo should have no more than 100,000 employees total.
Huh?!