Connect with us

Business

Union drive at Wells Fargo heats up as employees allege intimidation tactics

Published

on

Union drive at Wells Fargo heats up as employees allege intimidation tactics

After Wells Fargo was mired in a 2013 scandal over employees who opened millions of fake banking accounts, the bank created a new centralized unit to review customer complaints and employees’ allegations of workplace abuses.

Now, however, that team is upended by its own turmoil as its members have accused bank officials of aggressively trying to block a unionization drive and firing employees in retaliation for their efforts to organize.

Wells Fargo officials are open about their disfavor of the unionization effort but deny that the layoffs of 11 employees in the bank’s conduct management intake department were a response to the ongoing unrest, saying they were part of planned organizational changes.

The discontent is playing out against the backdrop of a broader push that began last year to unionize employees of the San Francisco-based bank. Tellers and other employees at about 20 Wells Fargo branches so far have voted to join Wells Fargo Workers United, the first-ever union at a major U.S. bank.

In interviews, current and laid-off members of the conduct management department said clashes with management arose after they announced in early September their intent to hold a vote on whether the 48 members of the department would join the union. In response, bank officials sent employees a barrage of emails disparaging the idea and continued to oppose it in meetings between higher-ups and staff, according to interviews with workers and emails reviewed by The Times.

Advertisement

“I personally don’t believe that this union can help us move forward as a team,” a manager wrote in one email. “I don’t think this union can guarantee anything for any of you.”

In another email, another manager indicated unionizing would not help workers better their pay and benefits.

“The CWA has probably promised you that things can only get better if you vote for them, but ask yourself, if that were true, why wouldn’t every worker in the United States be in a union?” a third manager wrote in an email.

Kieran Cuadras, 42, who began working at Wells Fargo as a teller in the Sacramento area in 2002, said senior managers would “hijack” work calls to tell workers why they shouldn’t unionize. In a video meeting, workers were told they had to switch their cameras on to hear from a labor relations manager hired by Wells Fargo, Cuadras said.

On Oct. 1, Cuadras received a message to join a call, on which she was fired. “It was heartbreaking. I sat there and sobbed.”

Advertisement

“They laid people off days before voting. Wells Fargo is not supposed to taint the election process. How can that not be viewed as intimidation, days before the vote?” Cuadras said.

After their layoffs, the 11 employees filed a claim against Wells Fargo with the National Labor Relations Board alleging unfair labor practices.

The union vote, which began last week, will conclude at the end of the month.

Wells Fargo assured workers who were laid off they would still be able to vote in the union election, but then walked back that claim and contested their votes, said Nick Weiner, the organizing director for the Committee for Better Banks, a New York-based group affiliated with the Communications Workers of America, the parent organization of Wells Fargo Workers United.

“Wells Fargo has been pulling out all the stops to try to convince them to vote no,” Weiner said.

Advertisement

Wells Fargo spokesperson Rachel Wall said the layoffs were routine.

“We regularly review and adjust staffing levels to align with market conditions and the needs of our businesses. This decision was made earlier this year and has nothing to do with the union,” she said in an emailed statement.

Wall said that the bank disapproved of the union and stood by its attempts to inform employees about its position, but that it respected employees’ rights and would bargain in good faith with employees who choose to be represented by a union.

“We respect our employees’ rights to vote for or against union representation and appreciate their careful consideration of this decision,” Wall said. “We believe our employees are best served by working directly with Wells Fargo and our leadership, and, within our rights, we will continue to speak with our employees about these matters so that each employee can make an informed decision.”

Unions of bank employees are unusual. According to an analysis of 2023 data by the U.S. Department of Labor, only 1.2% of workers in the banking and finance industry are unionized, among the lowest rates of union representation across industries.

Advertisement

Workers said uncertainty about job security, a lack of transparency about administrative decisions and concerns about the bank’s internal checks on misconduct led them to try to unionize. Particularly jarring, they said, was an announcement that workers who had worked remotely for years would need to move to different states to work in person, or reapply for their jobs altogether.

The bank, workers said, had shifted some of the conduct management department’s responsibilities to employees based in India and changed policies and procedures in a manner that reduced the type and number of complaints the department investigated.

“Management wasn’t listening to our concerns about changes in our procedures and definitions that would let misconduct slip through undetected,” said Heather Rolfes, an attorney in the complaint review department who was laid off.

The conduct management intake department at Wells Fargo was created in the wake of the scandal that erupted in 2016 when The Times reported bank employees had opened millions of fake deposit and checking accounts, and often transferred funds from consumers’ accounts without their knowledge or consent. Regulators eventually slapped Wells Fargo with fines and forced the bank to overhaul its processes to improve compliance.

Workers point out that changes made to their department come as government watchdogs have begun to ease strict compliance measures imposed on Wells Fargo as a result of the scandal, signaling that the bank is nearing the end of more than a decade of heightened regulatory oversight.

Advertisement

Roslynn Berkeland, 32, who has worked at Wells Fargo for nine years, including three years in her current role in the conduct management intake department, said the layoffs have left a team that is less experienced and “completely overwhelmed.” On Tuesday she said she had been assigned 16 cases that day, double the number of cases she typically would handle.

“I’m really worried about accuracy and the risk we are taking on,” Berkeland said. “I don’t know who to ask questions to anymore.”

In response to questions about concerns that the bank has eroded its ability to properly investigate questions of misconduct, Wells Fargo’s spokesperson said that changes the company has made aim to address inefficiencies in the process and that its global sites are equipped to handle sensitive information.

“We have taken great care in continuing to optimize our processes so that concerns are routed appropriately at the outset and reviewed in a timely fashion by those best positioned to address or resolve the matter,” Wall said.

Advertisement

Business

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Published

on

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Nike is cutting about 1,400 jobs in its operations division, mostly from its technology department, the company said Thursday.

In a note to employees, Venkatesh Alagirisamy, the chief operating officer of Nike, said that management was nearly done reorganizing the business for its turnaround plan, and that the goal was to operate with “more speed, simplicity and precision.”

“This is not a new direction,” Mr. Alagirisamy told employees. “It is the next phase of the work already underway.”

Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company, is trying to recover after missteps led to a prolonged sales slump, in which the brand leaned into lifestyle products and away from performance shoes and apparel. Elliott Hill, the chief executive, has worked to realign the company around sports and speed up product development to create more breakthrough innovations.

In March, Nike told investors that it expected sales to fall this year, with growth in North America offset by poor performance in Asia, where the brand is struggling to rejuvenate sales in China. Executives said at the time that more volatility brought on by the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices might continue to affect its business.

Advertisement

The reorganization has involved cuts across many parts of the organization, including at its headquarters in Beaverton, Ore. Nike slashed some corporate staff last year and eliminated nearly 800 jobs at distribution centers in January.

“You never want to have to go through any sort of layoffs, but to re-center the company, we’re doing some of that,” Mr. Hill said in an interview earlier this year.

Mr. Alagirisamy told employees that Nike was reshaping its technology team and centering employees at its headquarters and a tech center in Bengaluru, India. The layoffs will affect workers across North America, Europe and Asia.

The cuts will also affect staffing in Nike’s factories for Air, the company’s proprietary cushioning system. Employees who work on the supply chain for raw materials will also experience changes as staff is integrated into footwear and apparel teams.

Nike’s Converse brand, which has struggled for years to revive sales, will move some of its engineering resources closer to the factories they support, the company said.

Advertisement

Mr. Alagirisamy said the moves were necessary to optimize Nike’s supply chain, deploy technology faster and bolster relationships with suppliers.

Continue Reading

Business

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

Published

on

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.

The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.

The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.

The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.

Advertisement

It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.

However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.

Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.

Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.

“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.

Advertisement

In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”

The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.

“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.

Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.

Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.

Advertisement

Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.

The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.

But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.

Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.

A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.

Advertisement

“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .

Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.

Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.

Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Published

on

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.

Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.

But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.

While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.

Advertisement

“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.

It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”

Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.

“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.

The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.

Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”

Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.

Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.

“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”

Advertisement

For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.

“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending