A Wells Fargo spokesperson told Bloomberg that the company "holds employees to the highest standards and does not tolerate unethical behavior."
Says an unethical piece of shit corporation that secretly opened millions of unauthorized accounts of their customers to collect bogus fees, appease their shareholders and financial status.
Were the executives fired? No. Were they jailed for financial fraud? No.
"Highest standards" my ass. My job provides service to Wells Fargo; their fraud claims department is full of the rudest, most condescending people I've had the displeasure to work with.
Says an unethical piece of shit corporation that secretly opened millions of unauthorized accounts of their customers to collect bogus fees, appease their shareholders and financial status.
It's unethical for the workers to pretend to open those accounts by using software to trick their administrators into looking busy.
But they did use their mouse for valid company business, so it is all OK.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but your last sentence isn't correct.
Last year, the former head of the bank’s retail operation was sentenced to three years of probation, while the bank’s former CEO was banned from the industry.
I think technically op may be correct, as being banned from an industry is different from the business firing them. And probation isn't jail time
Sorry to come with "um, ackshuslly" but they didn't ask if they were convicted of a crime. The question was "were they jailed? And according to your post, they were not.
True. I was referring more to the first part about being fired. After rereading it, the two weren't "fired". Although 3 years of probation isn't nothing, it's a far cry from what many feel should have been done. The CEO was banned from the industry, which is something.
I'd really be curious to know if the punishment of the CEO & "head of retail operations" provided relief to the people affected by their crime AND was substantial enough to change their behavior.I feel that those items are what the sentencing should be about.
My ex-MIL worked for Wells Fargo and opened an account for me to help meet her quota. Then I started getting overdraft fees because there was no money in the account to pay the monthly fees for the account I didn’t want or use. I had her close it. So yeah the whole company was kinda duplicitous.
If they're yet another stereotypical thieving baron then doesn't that make it actually ethical to do fucking any kind of damage or do you gotta be heath ledger to actually be the good guy there?
A Wells Fargo spokesperson told Bloomberg that the company "holds employees to the highest standards and does not tolerate unethical behavior."
Says an unethical piece of shit corporation that secretly opened millions of unauthorized accounts of their customers to collect bogus fees, appease their shareholders and financial status.
Were the executives fired? No. Were they jailed for financial fraud? No.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wells-fargo-agrees-pay-3-billion-resolve-criminal-and-civil-investigations-sales-practices
"Highest standards" my ass. My job provides service to Wells Fargo; their fraud claims department is full of the rudest, most condescending people I've had the displeasure to work with.
It's unethical for the workers to pretend to open those accounts by using software to trick their administrators into looking busy.
But they did use their mouse for valid company business, so it is all OK.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but your last sentence isn't correct.
I think technically op may be correct, as being banned from an industry is different from the business firing them. And probation isn't jail time
Sorry to come with "um, ackshuslly" but they didn't ask if they were convicted of a crime. The question was "were they jailed? And according to your post, they were not.
True. I was referring more to the first part about being fired. After rereading it, the two weren't "fired". Although 3 years of probation isn't nothing, it's a far cry from what many feel should have been done. The CEO was banned from the industry, which is something.
I'd really be curious to know if the punishment of the CEO & "head of retail operations" provided relief to the people affected by their crime AND was substantial enough to change their behavior.I feel that those items are what the sentencing should be about.
My ex-MIL worked for Wells Fargo and opened an account for me to help meet her quota. Then I started getting overdraft fees because there was no money in the account to pay the monthly fees for the account I didn’t want or use. I had her close it. So yeah the whole company was kinda duplicitous.
If they're yet another stereotypical thieving baron then doesn't that make it actually ethical to do fucking any kind of damage or do you gotta be heath ledger to actually be the good guy there?