Wells Fargo lays off 2,300 employees

[Craig234]

Again, I don't see what the two have in common.

I told you clearly - both are business expenses business has an interest in reigning in.

As stated before, Wells Fargo employs 270,000 people. $23 million/yr to the CEO is $0.03/hr to all other employees. Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with laying off employees whose jobs no longer are needed.

Maybe you should volunteer to head a 270,000 employee company for less. I'm sure you could do a wonderful job. Right? Clearly the guy doing it now is just a greedy asshole.

You aren't very good at this.

I have a suggestion.

Let's take whatever the CEO of a big company makes - let's call it $50 million - and ignore the ways the system has been gamed to get it that high. It's all wonderful, right?

No, it's not. Let's make it $200 million, by slashing salaries.
If they don't like it let THEM be CEO.

Naw, not good enough. $500 million, let them get food stamps.
If they don't like it let THEM be CEO.

There's no limit until you hit minimum wage, right?

You don't see any problem here. No matter what the situation, you say 'if they don't like it let THEM be CEO'.

For the sake of argument, let's say he's a great CEO - the best guy for the job. That justifies a certain high compensation.

Thing is, you have no clue how much is appropriate, you have no clue the harm if it's too high.

All you can say is, 'if they don't like it let THEM be CEO.'

No, the guy does fine as CEO, let's say. Let's say putting some worker - and it can only be one anyway - in as CEO - would hurt the company terribly. Bad idea.

So your answer to that is not to determine appropriate compensation and look for ways to reign that in - the way you reign excessive, unneeded workforce. You love any amount.

You just assume that whatever the compensation is is fine, that there are good controls and rules that set it and every penny is justified, because you know no better.

There are systemic problems with an excessive concentration of wealth. Compensation is one issue, taxation is another, trade another, and there are more.

These become what are called 'systemic problems' that are boiled in, and very hard to change, perpetuating problems and creating new ones.

For example, I've mentioned the problem of Chicago selling 75 years of parking revenue for a lump sum worth far less than it's worth for short-term political gain. That deal happens because of these bigger economic problems - too little money with workers, too few taxes on the wealthy, slashed budgets - and the billions in lost revenue will hurt citizens for decades.

There's shouldn't be so many billions in the hands of a few people, creating predators pursuing deals like that, cities so broke they are tempted to take them.

And that deal with just concentrate wealth and impoverish citizens more, feeding the cycle.

Someone said his salary is in the 20 millions - that's not even the problem. There are a lot of other problems steering trillions the wrong direction.

You don't know anything about the issue of excessive concentration of wealth, do you, to have any opinion on it, other than blindly saying 'who cares?'

That's a good example of the limitation of democracy, that an uninformed populace is a danger to itself. There are plenty of people ready to trick people.

And so they are - as we've seen the worker share of profits plummet for decades, as salarires remain flat while all the gains in the economy go to the top 1%.

You should get a bit more informed on the issue, so you can offer a better opinion on the policies, and not only be a warrior against the workers.

Then maybe you could say something that helps support moving toward a stronger middle class and economy.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Royal Bank did something similar and lot of banks and corporations continue to do so. They replace the workers with "temporary" foreign workers since it's cheaper. In the case of RBC the employees actually had to train their replacements. Quite sickening how evil corporations can be only to make even more money on top of their ridiculous amounts.

Banks are probably among the most evil of corporations. Wasn't it Wells Fargo that also was known to foreclose people's homes even if they made their payments?

Screw the big banks... credit unions and small local banks are the way to go.

 

[Cuda1447]

JPMorgan Chase did the same thing very recently. Not 2300 people, but I believe it was around 800 people. Same reason. I expect most of the big banks to do, or have already done this. The refinance game was HUGE for the last year or two. I'd say 75%+ of the mortgage business was refinances. With rates where they are now, its absolutely murdered refinances. Rates going up even further is just the nail in the coffin.

 

[Craig234]

Screw the big banks... credit unions and small local banks are the way to go.

Ya, but thing is, consumer business is not what's going to do anything.

For example, there's the recent situation of Golman Sachs buying up Aluminum resources, while betting on a price increase in aluminum futures - then causing that price increase by hoarding the aluminum. Drove the bottlers nuts and drove up their costs, at the consumers' expense - in typical big bank fashion, not adding anything to the economy, just finding another way to be a paraiste and drain it. Consumer deposits don't matter to that deal.

 

[Auric]

Ya, but thing is, consumer business is not what's going to do anything.

For example, there's the recent situation of Golman Sachs...
Consumer deposits don't matter to that deal.

You mispelled Gollum Sechs. But yeah, large retail banks have been discouraging small individual accounts for decades. They all wanted to play investment banker.

 

[SKORPI0]

Padilla would not say how many total people the company employs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo

Employees 269,200 (2012)[2]

So about 0.8% of their employees.

 

[Oakenfold]

Ya, the economy before Obama was so much better, and tens of millions more with health insurance and other improvements are terrible, aren't they?

Ask a UPS Spouse about that.

Socialism, communism and leftism does not add anything to the economy, just finding another way to be a parasite and drain it.

Thought I'd help you out with that post. Not sure how you keep getting confused. You are welcome.

 

[OverVolt]

Worker pay versus CEO pay has diverged way above historical norms, you either get it or you don't. Doesn't matter if you make $30k or $150k you are actually in the same boat in the grand scheme of things.

Anyway rates rising means less refi work to do, this is more of a day trader type article. I would expect the other banks to follow suit soon.

 

[Michael]

Craig234 - Wells Fargo is a pubic corporation with a Board of Directors that determines executive pay. There are "say on pay" provisions already for their annual proxy filed with the SEC and voted on by the shareholders. It also is considered one of the better run banks.

I see zero outrage on the CEO's salary.

Michael

 

[Engineer]

Craig234 - Wells Fargo is a pubic corporation with a Board of Directors that determines executive pay. There are "say on pay" provisions already for their annual proxy filed with the SEC and voted on by the shareholders. It also is considered one of the better run banks.

I see zero outrage on the CEO's salary.

Michael

Like I said above...a big circle jerk in the boardrooms with members swinging vine to vine, from company to company. The 'Good ole boy' network in full action.

Not surprising to read your post considering that you are on (or have been on) a board yourself as well as being an executive in a company. Piss on the ants as long as we at the top can get more, more and more. People will tire of it quickly and vote themselves more via government.....already seeing it happening.

 

[ultimatebob]

Oh well... Wells Fargo sucks anyway. Smaller local banks FTW!

Seriously, I'm getting annoyed with all of the fee increases they keep adding to my formerly "free" Wachovia checking account.

 

[1prophet]

That attitude about workers would be more acceptable if you didn't ignore the huge abuses of executive compensation. THAT'S all justified and appropriate, of course, right?

What is stopping you from becoming an executive and receiving slavish compensation?

Work ethic

With his poor attitude nobody is going to invite him to join the club along with his guaranteed golden parachute regardless of performance.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate

According to some observers (John Asimakopoulos), interlocks allow for cohesion, coordinated action, and unified political-economic power of corporate executives.[3] They allow corporations to increase their influence by exerting power as a group, and to work together towards common goals.[4] They help corporate executives maintain an advantage, and gain more power over workers and consumers, by reducing intra-class competition and increasing cooperation.[2][5]



In the words of Scott R. Bowman, interlocks "facilitate a community of interest among the elite of the corporate world that supplants the competitive and socially divisive ethos of an earlier stage of capitalism with an ethic of cooperation and a sense of shared values and goals."[6]


Interlocks act as communication channels, enabling information to be shared between boards via multiple directors who have access to inside information for multiple companies.[1] The system of interlocks forms what Michael Useem calls a "transcorporate network, overarching all sectors of business".[7]

Interlocks have benefits over trusts, cartels, and other monopolistic/oligopolistic forms of organization, due to their greater fluidity, and lower visibility (making them less open to public scrutiny).[4]

They also benefit the involved companies, due to reduced competition, increased information availability for directors, and increased prestige

 

[Michael]

Engineer - Since this is about Wells Fargo, why don't you pull up their SEC filing (their annual proxy) and look at both the explanation of executive pay and the list of Directors with their qualifications.

After that, tell me what you disagree with and what Directors have have cross-Directorships that you are so concerned about. Also explain why you are better qualified to set salaries than they are.

I'm not sure you can get the various shareholder advisory corporations that recommend to institutional shareholders how to vote to see what they said, but they do exist and are independent of the Board. Almost all institutions follow that advice.

I find posts like yours pretty worthless and emotional. There certainly is an issue for many Boards in general, but the ones where Warren Buffet owns a large stake tend to be much better than average.

Michael

 

[Pulsar]

I wonder what would happen if the government got a little creative. Fix the loopholes that allow offshoring. Fix the taxes that will hamstring the companies. Then make the new tax structure dependent on the median pay of the company workforce (median, not average). The higher the median pay, the lower the tax rate. This would even serve to begin to fix the offshoring / chinese labor issue.

 

[Pulsar]

Like I said above...a big circle jerk in the boardrooms with members swinging vine to vine, from company to company. The 'Good ole boy' network in full action.

Not surprising to read your post considering that you are on (or have been on) a board yourself as well as being an executive in a company. Piss on the ants as long as we at the top can get more, more and more. People will tire of it quickly and vote themselves more via government.....already seeing it happening.

Yeah? So what? They aren't YOUR companies, so what you think about how much and who they pay means very little. If you'd like to live in a society where the government determines wages for jobs, I can point you to a couple. Of course, they haven't worked very well either.

 

[Engineer]

Engineer - Since this is about Wells Fargo, why don't you pull up their SEC filing (their annual proxy) and look at both the explanation of executive pay and the list of Directors with their qualifications.

After that, tell me what you disagree with and what Directors have have cross-Directorships that you are so concerned about. Also explain why you are better qualified to set salaries than they are.

I'm not sure you can get the various shareholder advisory corporations that recommend to institutional shareholders how to vote to see what they said, but they do exist and are independent of the Board. Almost all institutions follow that advice.

I find posts like yours pretty worthless and emotional. There certainly is an issue for many Boards in general, but the ones where Warren Buffet owns a large stake tend to be much better than average.

Michael

I find responses like yours pretty predictable. You've convinced me....nothing wrong with corporate CEO's and corporations in the US. Nothing wrong at all. Ship as many middle class jobs offshore, raise profits, fire a few more, raise profits, work those left harder, raise profit and then.....give big raises and bonuses while patting themselves on the back. Oh wait, who will buy the stuff now? No problem....we will give them massive credit to make up for the wages shortfalls. Worked great until it caught up with them and then they come crawling to the US government and taxpayer for a bailout.

The Robber Barons of the US have returned better than ever and this time, they've convinced most people that what they are doing is in the people's best interest.

But there is nothing wrong....you've convinced me of that.

And when you've cut your nose off spite your face, you start looking around wonder what is going (or went wrong)....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wal-mart-pushes-made-america-summit-180302824.html

 

[Engineer]

Yeah? So what? They aren't YOUR companies, so what you think about how much and who they pay means very little. If you'd like to live in a society where the government determines wages for jobs, I can point you to a couple. Of course, they haven't worked very well either.

You're right, they are not my companies. Why should I care if more American's are put out of work so the trickle up economics can keep on trucking.

Just remember, you're getting the US that you want by promoting more and more for those at the top at the expense of those at the bottom. Don't bitch and whine about it as more and more turn to and demand more government help as they continue to sink in the race to the bottom. The government has cut taxes more and more trying to make up for the loss of wages at the bottom, to the point of going negative (EIC) to try to keep it going. Throw in tax cuts over the decades at the top with the promise of trickle down, only to result in more trickle up. You're getting exactly what you want.....

Enjoy.

 

[Michael]

Engineer - Lots of emotional bitching (and I think you lost your job with a long extended period of unemployment which I hope has ended so I understand where the emotion comes from) but little substance in your post.

I suggested somethings you could easily check. There was nothing in my post that said it was OK, I merely pointed out what you could do to use facts in your response. You replied with more emotional and vapid statements. Meaning you did nothing to show that your point of view was correct.

Michael

 

[Engineer]

Engineer - Lots of emotional bitching (and I think you lost your job with a long extended period of unemployment which I hope has ended so I understand where the emotion comes from) but little substance in your post.

I suggested somethings you could easily check. There was nothing in my post that said it was OK, I merely pointed out what you could do to use facts in your response. You replied with more emotional and vapid statements. Meaning you did nothing to show that your point of view was correct.

Michael

I had a job interview within 2 days of losing my job (lost March 5th, 2010) and had an offer in less than 5 and was back to work in under 10 days (during the height of the recession). Drew 2 weeks of unemployment (my entire life). Have since moved to a new job at my choice and get about 3 to 4 head hunting job calls or e-mails per month. Nothing to do with my situation. But I do work around enough factories to influence my "emotion" as I see the middle class ripped off the face of the US while more and more move to the top.

As I watch CEO salaries skyrocket while more and more people become unemployed or have flat to dropping wages, I see a problem....emotion or fact...it's still there. I'm sure they are worth it though.....short term profits always win. Even when they lose and get kicked out, they still win. The real losers are the declining US middle class.

Again, enjoy what they (CEO's) are giving to you long term. You asked for it.

 

[Michael]

Engineer - glad that the job situation worked out fine for you. I lost a job myself because a CEO turned over and brought his guy in (I report directly to the CEO of my current company as well). It took me a few months to find something new and I now live in China.

You still are spouting general rhetoric. There is a very good reason why CEO salaries might be going up as a good leader is even more crucial in bad times than in good times. Not that CEO salaries are "skyrocketing" right now. The last big surge was from the options and RSU given right after the financial crisis which were at very low prices and now are worth a lot because the stock market has done so well.

Again, do you have any specific comments on Wells Fargo, or is this just a rant topic?

To make life even easier for you, here is a link to their latest proxy:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/72971/000119312513107713/d448653ddef14a.htm

Michael

 

[Engineer]

It might be more of a "general rant" but I'll end with this....

and might now have a thing to do with Wells Fargo but CEO pay has indeed skyrocketed....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/ceo-pay-worker-pay_n_1471685.html

(or worker pay has dropped or flattened - which is far worse than CEO pay actually skyrocketing at the same time as rising worker's wages).

 

[Michael]

Engineer - According to this article and the attachments (on the left of the article), the Wells Fargo CEO is considered "overpaid" by Bloomberg magazine.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...o-pay-with-26-million-deemed-as-overpaid.html

That is something on Wells Fargo, not some cherry-picked statistic chart that has nothing to do with the discussion on Wells Fargo.

BTW - if there is no work for the employees in the OP, then layoffs make sense to me.

Michael

 

[Yreka]

Wasn't it Wells Fargo that also was known to foreclose people's homes even if they made their payments?
.

Yes, they tried to foreclose on us, never have missed or been late on a payment..

Just to be clear, this isn't a "well we sent the payment it must have been lost in the mail".. We had returned checks.. paper trail showing not late, and them accepting the money for EVERY MONTH.

Ended up costing us over $6k in legal fees.. They were investigated by the government for fraudulent practices.. They settled with an agreement to send compensation to all the lenders affected..

We got a check for $300.....

 

[BoberFett]

CEO pay has gone up as a multiple of average employee salary, but I wonder how that correlates to the size of the companies they oversee? Does anyone have a study of CEO salary per employee? How does executive compensation compare over time by that metric? Is this simply a matter of companies being bigger than ever? And is really that bad to have one person run a company of 270,000 employees making $23M/yr vs ten people running ten companies each making $2.3M/yr? How does that change ANYTHING for the other employees?

 

[Craig234]

Wells Fargo story regarding the retail bank:

I once wrote a check to a relative who banked at Wells Fargo. It was deposited.They didn't get the money in their account.

I went to Wells Fargo locally and they had no service avalable. They just indicated they couldn't help, only the account holder could get help.

Someone who worked there offered to help 'above and beyond' what was required. They had me get paperwork from my bank showing the check had been deposited and the funds wiithdrawn. Then they still said 'nothing they can do' if it doesn't show the money in their system.

It took repeated demands and a threat of a suit and they finally deposited the money with no explanation or apology.