Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Wells Fargo fires old dude. For a joke....that he did in 1963


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#16 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,990 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 29 August 2012 - 08:43 PM

Also go back and read who brought up regulation. I simply said one could make the argument due to some regulation. Its a reach for Wells. Now as someone who works directly with fdic and wells and freddie mac and the govet I can assure you the govt is doing more harm than good.
But my point is mainly about the insanity of this guy losing his job. I was not going to make a political point. Save yourself some time and shame and avoid a debate with this one.

#17 CarolinaSock

CarolinaSock

    Senior Member

  • ALL-PRO
  • 689 posts

Posted 29 August 2012 - 09:26 PM

The article quotes Wells Fargo as blaming regulations for the firing. I simply pointed out they are full of it and using it as an excuse. I don't know enough about the overall regulations to argue about it, but in this case Wells Fargo is looking for sympathy by blaming a firing of an old man on something that doesn't even apply to his case. Why even suggest that it might be the fault of regulations when it's clearly not in this case?

#18 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,990 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:31 PM

Wells is hiding behind regulations to avoid age discrimination. Or any other type for that matter. But to give you a small idea of what we are facing. We just had a meeting last week about yet another rollout due to reg from the Feds. It's just 332 things. That's all. Not much.

#19 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,469 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 30 August 2012 - 12:15 AM

Wells is hiding behind regulations to avoid age discrimination. Or any other type for that matter. But to give you a small idea of what we are facing. We just had a meeting last week about yet another rollout due to reg from the Feds. It's just 332 things. That's all. Not much.


Be careful what you wish for...

The financial sector lobbied for decades to end the relatively simple depression era regulations on their businesses.

Within a decade of deregulation the financial sector had shyt-the-bed and brought the world economy to its knees.

So it is not surprising that the new regulations are considered suffocating in relation to the criminally negligent decade of deregulation that preceded it.

Sad thing is, all the new bureaucratic red tape will do little if anything to prevent the next collapse.

#20 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,055 posts

Posted 30 August 2012 - 05:44 AM

The article quotes Wells Fargo as blaming regulations for the firing. I simply pointed out they are full of it and using it as an excuse. I don't know enough about the overall regulations to argue about it, but in this case Wells Fargo is looking for sympathy by blaming a firing of an old man on something that doesn't even apply to his case. Why even suggest that it might be the fault of regulations when it's clearly not in this case?


Sorry, but that is hogwash. They have people working there that are that old, or older. One employee isn't going to make that much of a difference to a company the size of Wells.

Now it may be that he was a bad employee, and the manager was looking for an excuse to get rid of him. Or it may be that the manager is an idiot. But to say this is some nefarious plan is incorrect.

#21 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,188 posts

Posted 31 August 2012 - 05:29 AM

Straight from the FDIC website.

(3) Dishonesty or Breach of Trust. The conviction or program entry
must be for a criminal offense involving dishonesty, breach of trust or
money laundering. ``Dishonesty'' means directly or indirectly to cheat
or defraud; to cheat or defraud for monetary gain or its equivalent; or
wrongfully to take property belonging to another in violation of any
criminal statute. Dishonesty includes acts involving want of integrity,
lack of probity, or a disposition to distort, cheat, or act deceitfully
or fraudulently, and may include crimes which federal, state or local
laws define as dishonest. ``Breach of trust'' means a wrongful act,
use, misappropriation or omission with respect to any property or fund
which has been committed to a person in a fiduciary or official
capacity, or the misuse of one's official or fiduciary position to
engage in a wrongful act, use, misappropriation or omission.
Whether a crime involves dishonesty or breach of trust will be
determined from the statutory elements of the crime itself. All
convictions for offenses concerning the illegal manufacture, sale,
distribution of or trafficking in controlled substances shall require
an application.
(4) Youthful Offender Adjudgments. An adjudgment by a court against
a person as a ``youthful offender'' under any youth offender law, or
any adjudgment as a ``juvenile delinquent'' by any court having
jurisdiction over minors as defined by state law does not require an
application. Such adjudications are not considered convictions for
criminal offenses.
(5) De minimis Offenses. Approval is automatically granted and an
application will not be required where the covered offense is
considered de minimis, because it meets all of the following criteria:
<bullet> There is only one conviction or program entry of record
for a covered offense;
<bullet> The offense was punishable by imprisonment for a term of
less than one year and/or a fine of less than $1000, and the individual
did not serve time in jail;
<bullet> The conviction or program was entered at least five years
prior to the date an application would otherwise be required; and
<bullet> The offense did not involve an insured depository
institution or insured credit union.
Any person who meets the foregoing criteria shall be covered by a
fidelity bond to the same extent as others in similar positions, and
shall disclose the presence of the conviction or program entry to all
insured institutions in the affairs of which he or she intends to
participate.

I guess some of you didnt read what I got from the FDIC site. His crime meets all the requirements for it to be ignored. Wells Fargo is trying to pump up some publicity by blaming the regulations for forcing them to do this so they can get people against the regulations. Its all a crock just to get some sympathy just because they are actually being some what watched over instead of doing what ever they want with no consequences.

The article quotes Wells Fargo as blaming regulations for the firing. I simply pointed out they are full of it and using it as an excuse. I don't know enough about the overall regulations to argue about it, but in this case Wells Fargo is looking for sympathy by blaming a firing of an old man on something that doesn't even apply to his case. Why even suggest that it might be the fault of regulations when it's clearly not in this case?

NUH UH LALALALALACAN'THEARYOU


lol good job mr sock


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com