Thread regarding Edward Jones layoffs

@7an This pattern of behavior appears to extend beyond a single leader. There are reports that additional executives, including Jose, are allocating unplanned and unbudgeted funds toward Accenture-related payouts. This raises serious governance concerns regarding vendor favoritism, financial oversight, and accountability in procurement decisions.

The sourcing team provided an update today regarding the AI initiative POC conducted in QE with two vendors—one of them being Accenture, who participated at zero cost. Both vendors collaborated with the internal teams. However, the Accenture product proved ineffective, and they later demanded several million dollars to use their solution. In contrast, the other vendor offered an excellent product completely free of charge to build goodwill within the development community.

Accenture was reportedly unhappy with the evaluation outcome and escalated the issue to Robert Anselmo. In response, Anselmo—concerned about maintaining good relations with Accenture leadership—approved a $250K payment for the POC, despite multiple leaders reminding him that it was supposed to be a free engagement. Consequently, no payment was made to the other vendor.

After feedback was shared with Anselmo, he allegedly placed several leaders involved in the decision-making process on the layoff list, even though they had followed proper procedures. The key question remains: why was Accenture paid 250K for a free POC while the other vendor, who delivered a superior product, received nothing? This raises serious concerns about potential bias and unfair influence in vendor management.

@1g3 What you’re describing is unfortunately common in big organizations: when a small circle consolidates control, people outside that circle often feel powerless, unrecognized, or even pushed out. It’s frustrating when politics outweigh merit, especially in areas like vendor management, where transparency and competition should be the norm. In the past three years, you’ve seen:

A culture of fear where people stay silent rather than risk being targeted.

Talent loss because good leaders (GPs) who weren’t in the inner circle were pushed aside.

Closed-door vendor decisions that benefit certain players, especially Accenture, instead of what’s best for the business. Feeling sidelined in an environment like that is draining — not because you lack impact, but because the system is designed to reward loyalty to a circle over actual results.

Okay I have now communicated with over three dozen people who have been impacted personally. I am ready to stand up and fight. What I don’t know is how to bring us all together in the best way possible, maintaining our roles for basic survival or those who sadly lost them to receive their highly taxed packages “coming soon”. If anyone has basic guidance please share here and I will lead forward. Thank you all for your strength and voice!

@b4 How is this not called out by Compliance’s Conflict of Interest control where St Leadership is biased and brings in suppliers one has a relationship with. Who’s checking this stuff?

This is blatant corruption, plain and simple. UBS Mafia protects Accenture at all costs. Anyone who dares to question them is taken out — a GP who refused to sign off on their bloated, made-up bills was forced into retirement, and an entire team that gave negative feedback was eliminated by ISP.

Accenture doesn’t compete; they don’t go through RFPs, they don’t get costed against other vendors — they just get handed the work, just as they got Quality Engineering work, no questions asked. And now Anselmo and Jose, pocketing their Accenture kickbacks, are forcing our own associates to train the very people who will replace us. November or February — that’s when the axe drops.

Don’t kid yourself, this isn’t strategy or efficiency — it’s corruption, and it’s destroying EJ from the inside - who is going to keep Bob and Jose accountable, their friend from UBS - Mr. CIO, who is still pi---d that he is reporting to the d-mb CFO rather than the Penny.

I can attest to the fact that it Was purely based on favoritism. as a long-term employee over 15 years, series 7 and 66 licensed and doing more work with a lesser title than those in the actual role I was supplementing for, I was displaced. All of the individuals doing less work than I were placed somewhere. I believe this is specifically due to my partial medical leave leaving me in a position, where at the general partner de deciding, my fate had never even met me until she was letting me know of my displacement.

Anyone here have names of any plaintiffs attorneys who are representing claims against the firm?

It would be good to see a class action take shape on these actions. I am sure many on this board have prices of the puzzle they could add…

I was told by my former GP that people they knew better took the roles. This was not based on performance or skill but rather history and personal experience.

@OP what is the best way to speak up?

Make no mistake, “reimagine” has been used as a thin veil for cronyism, culling of those who dare dissent and rampant favoritism.

The legal and HR functions - that in most companies would provide legal/ethical challenge - were totally (lest they end up on the chopping block themselves). Cowards, just happy to have their jobs.

Skills, performance and ability had no real weight. Older employees were exited in favor of younger associates with “high potential”. Justifications for decisions were hastily documented so legal/HR could “check the box”.

This is a plaintiff’s attorney dream. But more to the point of this thread, the ethics of this entire process are DISGUSTING.

Worst of all - these are the people managing YOUR money!!

A role was open in March with candidates going through a formal interview process and then in April the requisition was paused. Then through the magic of ER, the GP’s friend was placed in the role with no interview required. This behavior, in addition, to the 1,200 home office demotions is rewriting the rules of leadership in this “partnership”.
I don’t need partners to share the work, I need them to redistribute the profit is a radical shift in climate and cultural dynamics that is turning us into the next AG Edward’s.

If the goal is to save money, then how come Robert Anselmo is able to engage in corruption by extending contracts to his friends at Accenture. EJ is being billed at rates between $350 to $500 per hour for testing resource, significantly higher than standard industry rates and far above what other vendors typically charge (which is in the $100 to $130 per hour range). In my 10+ years in the industry, I have never encountered such inflated billing rates for QA/testing resources - if you raise your voice, you will be in ISP list by UBS mafia.