Wells Fargo worker asks CEO for raise in email, CC'ing hundreds of thousands

[ksen]

CCing an entire organisation is indeed a very serious thing to do.

Why?

 

[Rhea]

I think it shows irresponsibility, lack of understanding of/respect for company resources. It is a serious waste of man-hours, especially if it was really "thousands" of people or worse, "hundreds of thousands."

I'd call it serious, too.
I've seen it by accident many times, a company wide e-mail and someone hits "reply all" and I know they get a talking to. To do it on purpose? Not good. And this one, pretty petulant and if anyone read it, lengthy.

A guy was fired from our company for sending a goofy penis picture/joke to his buddy, but accidentally typing a company-wide distribution list instead of his buddy's name (this was early 1990s, prior to restricting company-wide distribution lists!) Over 8000 people got that penis joke. You can bet there was a moment of realization, then time spent figuring out who this bozo was, then talking about it, not to mention the horrifying ones that came up on screens while customers were there.

Looking at the math, if it is one thousand people and if they take 15 seconds to read it and discard it, that is 1000ppl/4look-per-minute/60minutes per hour= over four hours of wasted company time. For _one_ thousand people. Assuming every one of them just deletes after only 15 seconds.

If it's actually a hundred thousand and half of the people spend one minute talking about it or getting back their train of thought to whatever else they were doing, now it's over 1000 wasted corporate hours. Yes that is a big deal. Half a year of productivity lost in one stroke of the "enter" key.

 

[ksen]

meh

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I think it shows irresponsibility, lack of understanding of/respect for company resources. It is a serious waste of man-hours, especially if it was really "thousands" of people or worse, "hundreds of thousands."

I'd call it serious, too.
I've seen it by accident many times, a company wide e-mail and someone hits "reply all" and I know they get a talking to. To do it on purpose? Not good. And this one, pretty petulant and if anyone read it, lengthy.

A guy was fired from our company for sending a goofy penis picture/joke to his buddy, but accidentally typing a company-wide distribution list instead of his buddy's name (this was early 1990s, prior to restricting company-wide distribution lists!) Over 8000 people got that penis joke. You can bet there was a moment of realization, then time spent figuring out who this bozo was, then talking about it, not to mention the horrifying ones that came up on screens while customers were there.

Looking at the math, if it is one thousand people and if they take 15 seconds to read it and discard it, that is 1000ppl/4look-per-minute/60minutes per hour= over four hours of wasted company time. For _one_ thousand people. Assuming every one of them just deletes after only 15 seconds.

If it's actually a hundred thousand and half of the people spend one minute talking about it or getting back their train of thought to whatever else they were doing, now it's over 1000 wasted corporate hours. Yes that is a big deal. Half a year of productivity lost in one stroke of the "enter" key.

And if it gets the ball rolling on opening a dialog that leads to a better working environment for those thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people? Would it be worth it then?

 

[dismal]

meh

You started the thread suggesting the guy was going to get fired so you must have sensed there had been some breach of acceptable corporate behavior.

 

[Malintent]

Really. That's why you think he should get fired?

Reading an email takes maybe average of 5 seconds of working time. Multiply by ten thousand, and you waste about 14 man hours. And it happened once. Show me an employee who in his whole career has not deliberately wasted that much by taking unnecessary sick leave, browsing the internet during office hours, taking long lunches and coffee breaks, and so on. That hardly warrants firing someone.

No, the reason why he will be fired is because of the media attention and the ruckus it will cause inside Wells-Fargo. But I think he knew that and it won't come off as a surprise. More power to him.

5 seconds? Maybe to dismiss something as spam but this was something from a fellow employee. It's going to take a lot more than 5 seconds to dismiss. Furthermore, it's deliberately abusive.

that and then no one.. not one person, is going to stand around the coffee room and talk about it for several minutes.. naw.. 300,000 people all just read the email in 5 seconds (lol) and then never mention it ever again. lololol..
This represents potentially 100's of wasted hours... but that is not even the point.
The point about why this guy might get fired is that he likely violated several protocols by addressing so many people with his rant, rather than sending his message 'up the chain', so to speak.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

This is a perfect example of vision without direction.

aa

 

[Metaphor]

CCing an entire organisation is indeed a very serious thing to do.

Why?

Rhea has given a good reply below.

 

[crispy]

From the mail: Do companies actually have the authority to take away your constitutional rights to assemble in unions?

 

[Axulus]

From the mail: Do companies actually have the authority to take away your constitutional rights to assemble in unions?

There's no constitutional right in the US to do so and be protected from firing. Our constitution mentions nothing about unions. It is covered under other US laws, though. Employers are not allowed to retaliate against employees interested in forming a union.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If it's actually a hundred thousand and half of the people spend one minute talking about it or getting back their train of thought to whatever else they were doing, now it's over 1000 wasted corporate hours. Yes that is a big deal. Half a year of productivity lost in one stroke of the "enter" key.

I'm glad to see someone gets it.

The math is simple enough: The average time to read * the number of recipients = wasted time.

- - - Updated - - -

From the mail: Do companies actually have the authority to take away your constitutional rights to assemble in unions?

But the company is perfectly justified in saying no use of company resources to organize.

 

[crispy]

But from the sound of the email it sounds like the company is actually prohibiting its employees from joining a union - and Im asking if they can do that? Their own spare time and money ofc. And in my opinion, the company should also support employee groups by helping distribute information in their mail systems, if its relevant of course.

 

[Axulus]

But from the sound of the email it sounds like the company is actually prohibiting its employees from joining a union - and Im asking if they can do that? Their own spare time and money ofc. And in my opinion, the company should also support employee groups by helping distribute information in their mail systems, if its relevant of course.

No, but neither do they have to provide company resources to facilitate the union in any way, nor do they have to allow union communications and activities during hours in which the employees are working the jobs they were hired for.

See here:

examples of employer conduct that violates the law:

Threatening employees with loss of jobs or benefits if they join or vote for a union or engage in protected concerted activity.

Threatening to close the plant if employees select a union to represent them.

Questioning employees about their union sympathies or activities in circumstances that tend to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act.

Promising benefits to employees to discourage their union support.

Transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning employees more difficult work tasks, or otherwise punishing employees because they engaged in union or protected concerted activity.

Transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning employees more difficult work tasks, or otherwise punishing employees because they filed unfair labor practice charges or participated in an investigation conducted by NLRB.

Examples of labor organization conduct that violates the law:

Threats to employees that they will lose their jobs unless they support the union.

Seeking the suspension, discharge or other punishment of an employee for not being a union member even if the employee has paid or offered to pay a lawful initiation fee and periodic fees thereafter.

Refusing to process a grievance because an employee has criticized union officials or because an employee is not a member of the union in states where union security clauses are not permitted.

Fining employees who have validly resigned from the union for engaging in protected concerted activities following their resignation or for crossing an unlawful picket line.

Engaging in picket line misconduct, such as threatening, assaulting, or barring non-strikers from the employer's premises.

Striking over issues unrelated to employment terms and conditions or coercively enmeshing neutrals into a labor dispute.

http://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employerunion-rights-and-obligations

 

[crispy]

All good then, just sounded in the mail like they were doing that sort of stuff.

 

[Bomb#20]

Furthermore, it's deliberately abusive.

In what way?

In this way...

All good then, just sounded in the mail like they were doing that sort of stuff.

The guy in effect accused Wells Fargo of labor law violations. So it comes down to whether Wells Fargo is guilty as charged. If they really are maintaining a non-union shop by cheating then the guy is a whistleblower and entitled to protection on that account; if they aren't then he libeled the company he works for which is surely a fireable offense.

 

[Bomb#20]

whoops, forgot to post the actual email.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/story-supplement/wells-fargo-full-email/index.html?iid=EL

... My estimate is that Wells Fargo has roughly around 300,000 employees. My proposal is take $3 billion dollars, just a small fraction of what Wells Fargo pulls in annually, and raise every employees annual salary by $10,000 dollars. This equates to an hourly raise about $4.71 per hour. Think, as well, of the positive publicity in a time of extreme consumer skepticism towards banks. By doing this, Wells Fargo will not only help to make its people, its family, more happy, productive, and financially stable, it will also show the rest of the United States, if not the world that, yes big corporations can have a heart other than philanthropic endeavors.

P.S. – To all of my fellow team members who receive a copy of this email. Though Wells Fargo does not allow the formation of unions, this does not mean we cannot stand united. Each and every one of us plays an integral part in the success of this company. It is time that we ask, no, it is time that we demand to be rightfully compensated for the hard work that we accomplish, and for the great part we all have played in the success of this company. There are many of us out there who come to work every day and give it our all, yet, we struggle to make ends meet while our peers in upper management and company executives reap the majority of the rewards. ...

So let me see if I'm following his ethical argument. Mr. Oates' theory is that it is heartless and unrighteous to make a deal with another person where you do something for him and he does something for you and the share of the total mutual benefit you each get from this arrangement is determined by whatever is the going market rate for what each of you brings to the table, when the outcome of the deal is highly unequal in that one party to the deal gets millions out of it because he makes the same deal with hundreds of thousands of little guys who each get a small benefit? It's heartless and unrighteous because all those little guys' great part in the success of the endeavor entitle them to a bigger share of the total mutual benefit than will be delivered by the arbitrary, amoral, and unseeing crossing point of the supply and demand curves? Do I have that straight?

If that's his moral judgment, then what the hell is the man doing working at a bank?!? He's just indicted the whole economic activity of banking per se as heartless and unrighteous. If he applied his principle consistently his letter would have called on Stumpf to give that $3 billion dollars back to the customers in the form of lower interest rates on their loans, in rightful compensation for the great part the customers play in the success of the company; and then he'd have quit his job and gone off to find a credit union to work for. The whole thing is a special pleading fallacy.

 

[Togo]

So let me see if I'm following his ethical argument. Mr. Oates' theory is that it is heartless and unrighteous to make a deal with another person where you do something for him and he does something for you and the share of the total mutual benefit you each get from this arrangement is determined by whatever is the going market rate for what each of you brings to the table, when the outcome of the deal is highly unequal in that one party to the deal gets millions out of it because he makes the same deal with hundreds of thousands of little guys who each get a small benefit? It's heartless and unrighteous because all those little guys' great part in the success of the endeavor entitle them to a bigger share of the total mutual benefit than will be delivered by the arbitrary, amoral, and unseeing crossing point of the supply and demand curves? Do I have that straight?

Not quite. Mr Oates gets paid at replacement cost, or possibly below that, since his employer has a great deal of power in the relationship. The CEO gets paid at a rate negotiated by himself and his peers, based on what they feel they deserve. This is several times higher than his replacement cost. Neither is strictly a market rate, and neither is driven by the intersection of demand curves.

If that's his moral judgment, then what the hell is the man doing working at a bank?!? He's just indicted the whole economic activity of banking per se as heartless and unrighteous.

That would appear to be a fair assessment of Wells Fargo's business. Certainly there is a contradiction between hiring the best people and paying industry average.

It seems likely that one of the motivations of his email was that he didn't want to work for a bank any more, or at least not a bank run as it currently is. Hence putting his job on the line in an effort to effect change.

If he applied his principle consistently his letter would have called on Stumpf to give that $3 billion dollars back to the customers in the form of lower interest rates on their loans, in rightful compensation for the great part the customers play in the success of the company;

That doesn't make sense. The Company openly and publically acknoweldges their belief that their success is down to the superior employees that they have. The customer's performance is not an issue, since there's no evidence that their cutomers are different from those of their competitors. Indeed many of their customers are coming from their competitors.

 

[Rhea]

If it's actually a hundred thousand and half of the people spend one minute talking about it or getting back their train of thought to whatever else they were doing, now it's over 1000 wasted corporate hours. Yes that is a big deal. Half a year of productivity lost in one stroke of the "enter" key.

And if it gets the ball rolling on opening a dialog that leads to a better working environment for those thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people? Would it be worth it then?

It is worth it to him. Because he invests nothing in getting the ball rolling.
And he can claim he's the only one who used up this time.
Not necessarily worth it to the company. There are, I believe, better avenues that are more appropriate.
If the discussion starts on company time, and a "reply-all" is sent. Then another. A company-wide discussion. This is not worth it to the company.
Company wide discussions can be led and held by consultants using response mechanisms that do not rely on company time.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And if it gets the ball rolling on opening a dialog that leads to a better working environment for those thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people? Would it be worth it then?

It is worth it to him. Because he invests nothing in getting the ball rolling.
And he can claim he's the only one who used up this time.
Not necessarily worth it to the company. There are, I believe, better avenues that are more appropriate.
If the discussion starts on company time, and a "reply-all" is sent. Then another. A company-wide discussion. This is not worth it to the company.
Company wide discussions can be led and held by consultants using response mechanisms that do not rely on company time.

I respectfully disagree.

I understand how time is money. I understand the corporate side. I understand everything you are saying.

I also understand that we presently live in country that I feel spend too much time understanding time is money, the corporate side, and pretty much everything you are saying.

At this point anything that causes disruption of the system is revolutionary act, even if only for 30 seconds per employee. And what we need in corporatized America are revolutionary acts.

 

[Bomb#20]

Not quite. Mr Oates gets paid at replacement cost, or possibly below that, since his employer has a great deal of power in the relationship. The CEO gets paid at a rate negotiated by himself and his peers, based on what they feel they deserve. This is several times higher than his replacement cost. Neither is strictly a market rate, and neither is driven by the intersection of demand curves.

How are you calculating either of their replacement costs? You think if the BoD thought they could get a better CEO cheaper they wouldn't do it? Boards fire CEOs all the time. The reality is that any numbers we can specify as replacement cost, or market rate, or price at a given level of supply or a given level of demand, are all approximations. What anybody actually gets paid is affected by any number of causes too complicated to model mathematically. The point is that prices for labor are no more based on "rightful compensation", as though it were possible for reasonable people to come to an agreement on how much that is, than the respective interest rates upon which the bank's profitability is based are.

If that's his moral judgment, then what the hell is the man doing working at a bank?!? He's just indicted the whole economic activity of banking per se as heartless and unrighteous.

That would appear to be a fair assessment of Wells Fargo's business.

Having formerly banked at Wells Fargo, I would not disagree with you on that point; but it's not the issue.

Certainly there is a contradiction between hiring the best people and paying industry average.

Among the reasons I took my business elsewhere was wretched customer service. The hypothesis that they hire the best people is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

It seems likely that one of the motivations of his email was that he didn't want to work for a bank any more, or at least not a bank run as it currently is. Hence putting his job on the line in an effort to effect change.

No doubt; but the point is, Mr. Oates has spent his working life doing to the customers what he's complaining about Stumpf doing to him. For him to make the appeal on behalf of himself and his fellow perpetrators instead of behalf of the customers is textbook special-pleading.

If he applied his principle consistently his letter would have called on Stumpf to give that $3 billion dollars back to the customers in the form of lower interest rates on their loans, in rightful compensation for the great part the customers play in the success of the company;

That doesn't make sense. The Company openly and publically acknoweldges their belief that their success is down to the superior employees that they have. The customer's performance is not an issue, since there's no evidence that their cutomers are different from those of their competitors. Indeed many of their customers are coming from their competitors.

Seriously? You're offering management's empty feel-good "thank you" of the sort pretty much every big company on the planet utters on a regular basis as evidence that Wells Fargo really does have superior employees?!?