Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

Wells Fargo Now Accused of Also Conducting Fake Job Interviews (yahoo.com) 139

Posted by EditorDavid from the lower-finance dept.
2016: "Wells Fargo Fires 5,300 Employees For Creating Millions of Phony Accounts"
2017: "Up To 1.4M More Fake Wells Fargo Accounts Possible"

The headlines kept coming.... ("Wells Fargo Hit With 'Unprecedented' Punishment Over Fake Accounts..." "Wells Fargo Employee Informed the Bank of Fake Customer Accounts in 2006")

But this week the New York Times reported a new allegation — involving fake job interviews: Joe Bruno, a former executive in the wealth management division of Wells Fargo, had long been troubled by the way his unit handled certain job interviews. For many open positions, employees would interview a "diverse" candidate — the bank's term for a woman or person of color — in keeping with the bank's yearslong informal policy. But Mr. Bruno noticed that often, the so-called diverse candidate would be interviewed for a job that had already been promised to someone else. He complained to his bosses. They dismissed his claims. Last August, Mr. Bruno, 58, was fired. In an interview, he said Wells Fargo retaliated against him for telling his superiors that the "fake interviews" were "inappropriate, morally wrong, ethically wrong." Wells Fargo said Mr. Bruno was dismissed for retaliating against a fellow employee.

Mr. Bruno is one of seven current and former Wells Fargo employees who said that they were instructed by their direct bosses or human resources managers in the bank's wealth management unit to interview "diverse" candidates — even though the decision had already been made to give the job to another candidate.

Five others said they were aware of the practice, or helped to arrange it...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wells Fargo Now Accused of Also Conducting Fake Job Interviews More

Wells Fargo Now Accused of Also Conducting Fake Job Interviews

Comments Filter:

  • Lies and Deception (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsiIvergun ( 7443340 ) on Saturday May 21, 2022 @09:35PM (#62555512)
    It's what unregulated Big Business is all about.
    • There tens of thousands of laws and regulations that citizens, all sized businesses and the government are required to abide by. And thousands of pages added every year. But with campaign donations those with money can buy exemptions from all of them. And government naturally exempts themselves. But the middle class is stuck and just collateral damage to those playing the get rich through government game.

      • "And thousands of pages added every year. "

          And how is anyone supposed to follow all of this?

            This seems more like setting up a trap so a politician who gets pissed off can go after a company that didn't give him a nice Christmas "gift".

    • Shareholders should insist that the management be paid fake salaries in something like Terracoin.
    • It happens in government too, nothing unique with âoebig businessâ. itâ(TM)s just the general result of rules requiring that roles are advertised, of meeting quotas and targets etc when the reality is that many jobs are stitched up before the advert is even written. Source: Iâ(TM)ve been on the receiving end where a close acquaintance happened to be involved and casually talked about the non-available role Iâ(TM)d been interviewing for at a dinner.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      This is nothing new - businesses have been creating job openings, targeted toward hiring/promoting a particular person, but per company policy held open interviews despite already having a candidate in mind. Is it only morally and ethically improper when the interviewee is a woman or person of color?

      Is there some moral or ethical obligation to cease all interviews once you've decided on a candidate? It is possible, but not common, that an interview could go so well that the hiring manager changes their mind

    • It's what unregulated Big Business is all about.

      Yes, but still I'll say...Fuck off, they all do this all the time. Tech companies will "bring them in.." for example, just to see what they know, with no intentions of hiring them.

    • Re:Lies and Deception (Score:5, Informative)

      by _Sharp'r_ ( 649297 ) <sharper@@@booksunderreview...com> on Sunday May 22, 2022 @10:05AM (#62556238) Homepage Journal

      If you believe WF is an "unregulated" big business, you know absolutely nothing about the financial industry in the United States.

      The government regulators effectively run WF now, right down to telling them what patching schedule to use for their servers and how much capital they're allowed to hold.

      The reason behind this specific phenomenon, is that WF has rules (and they're not "informal", they're enforced by HR - you literally can't get someone through the hiring process without following them) which require all hiring for any significant position to have "underrepresented" candidates interviewed and present on the interviewing panel.

      So it doesn't matter if there is only one person who can do the job who applied, or if you're trying to poach a particular person from elsewhere, you still have to jump through the HR diversity hoops. It's not bias against minorities requiring this, it's official government and HR diversity policies.

    • It's got nothing to do with business or regulations. It's just human nature.

      You do the exact same thing when you're shopping for some product you saw at a friend's house which you really liked. You're about to put it in your cart, then you think just to be "thorough" you should check out the alternatives. So you give some competitors a cursory glance, compiling a list of only their drawbacks in your head. Meanwhile your list of the product you wanted is only of its advantages (because that's why you want

  • Nothing new. (Score:5, Informative)

    by GimpOnTheGo ( 6567570 ) on Saturday May 21, 2022 @09:39PM (#62555522)

    In government IT contracting they usually have someone lined up for the role. They then put the job out as a "market test" for the minimum amount of time (usually three days) and then throw in a couple of sham interviews.

    A good recruiter will know if the job is real or not. It's a complete waste of time and effort for all involved.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kisai ( 213879 )

      This is exactly what happens. The job is advertised, but it's already filled. They do it so that it passes the diversity regulations, but have no intent of ever hiring.

      That said, this happens with unions ever worse. Because the unions guarantee jobs based on seniority, not competency, not diversity.

      The only way out of this is requiring that everyone who applies for a job must see the list of other applicants (eg not the names, the list of applications, date, time, position, interview status.) Like I wouldn'

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fermion ( 181285 )
        So going into a store and stealing a ring is worse than buying the ring with a credit you know will never be paid

        This is laws and contract, not what we might be believe to moral or not. Yes, companies regularly advertise jobs that are already filled. This is to try to show compliance with the law without necessarily complying with the law. Like a bank robber neve carrying a loaded gun

        An obvious solution, if one wants to primarily promote from inside the organization, is to work with unions so that the l

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 )
      "In government IT contracting" not just IT, not just government, it is done in most corporate/government entities at all levels. There is usually an insider list. And we don't need new laws or regulations. We already have thousands. Remember, laws and regulations are the weapons the government uses on their enemies. That is why they rarely take a law or regulation off the books. It might come in handy in the future.
      • I just went through the interview process for a position and was an internal applicant. I was the favored person, but it was definitely my promotion to lose if I bombed the interviews. I still had people on my interview panel from HR who I never met, and also had a one on one interview with the CIO as well. Just because you interview diverse candidates doesn't always mean they are qualified. But it is stupid if they pre decided and just wasted people's time like this.

        • Itâ(TM)s not stupid, itâ(TM)s the regulation that requires it. Everywhere does this, they HAVE to open the job for 3 days to comply with regulation even if youâ(TM)re promoting someone internally. Not sure where the complaint is, as youâ(TM)re promoting someone, someone must fill that lower end role, youâ(TM)ll eventually hire an outside person.

    • I think its much worse when the "fake" interviews are specifically done to meet quotas for interviewing underrepresented groups

      In general though the problem is that its very difficult to really evaluate a candidate in an interview. Some people interview well but perform badly, others the reverse. People lie on resumes and in interviews - for example someone who claims to have architected a system may have just worked on it, and is familiar with its architecture, but didn't create it. You can ask peopl

    • Re:Nothing new. (Score:5, Informative)

      by DrMrLordX ( 559371 ) on Sunday May 22, 2022 @01:40AM (#62555756)

      Seems like a lot of jobs advertised already have an H1B ready to fill the role.

    • This is not US specific. I have heard of such things happening in a few places, where the hiring manager already knows who they are going to hire, but has to go thru the motions due to either company policies or government regulations.

      End of the day it's a waste of time for everyone involved so that a hiring manager gets to tick a box on a checklist.

    • Nothing to do with government IT, that practice transcends sectors and industries.

  • Bureaucratic Rules (Score:3)

    by blitz487 ( 606553 ) on Saturday May 21, 2022 @09:42PM (#62555530)

    are always going to be gamed and circumvented. It's why bureaucratic rules aren't a very good way to run things in the real world.

    • This. Though the diversity thing is just that guys bias... they are interviewing candidates when they already know who they want to fill the spot with so that existing employees who want the spot can feel they had a shot at it. If the candidates they hire are high on the diversity specs that is because of affirmative action requirements in HR when sending over candidates.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by splutty ( 43475 )

      Now I want you to think about something else. You're stating that they're not a very good way.

      So. What would be a good way? Not having them? Are there any other methods?

      Having something that's "not very good" is still better than not having them at all. And complaining about it without being able to offer something better/more fitting/moremakingyouhappy, is disingenuous, but seems to be SOP nowadays.

    • Not true, whether they're gamed and circumvented is almost entirely a reflection of upper management. There's nothing terribly onerous or difficult about modern hiring laws. Where I work (500+ employees) management and HR actually takes diversity seriously. We give every candidate a fair shake and hire the best regardless of race, sex, etc etc. It's not hard and we don't have to worry about audits.

      Wells Fargo is just lazy and their upper management has a history of lying to avoid their laziness. Can

  • if made shitty and without proper forethought, the fallout is on the creator(s).

    Also: "bank regulations" -- let's maybe have some again soon.

  • This has nothing to do with diversity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Saturday May 21, 2022 @09:53PM (#62555548) Journal
    All large companies do this. Essentially the boss already knows who they want to give a new position or slot to but the company requires them to post and given equal opportunity. The idea is that a manager should be able to position his pieces on the board as he sees fit for best results but employees want what they think is 'fair' or they are entitled to. This lets them feel they were given a shot at the promotion or job. The requirements get tailored for the individual they want to hire then 9 times out of 10 they hire who they wanted in the first place but I have seen an overqualified outsider come in and steal the spot.

    A similar tactic is used to justify an h1b or other visa holder, in that case they create a set of impossible requirements so they can exclude every domestic candidate. They are allowed to deny anyone who doesn't fit the job req of course but nothing prevents them from hiring the h1b who doesn't perfectly meet the original req. If anyone did ever question this they could always claim that the search itself revealed that they needed to adjust their expectations.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Kisai ( 213879 )

      The problem with the H1B hire, is that it's gamed in an incredibly cruel way so that the business isn't hiring the "best" candidate, only the cheapest one. This is why staffing agencies appear to be the sole beneficiary of H1B's, when they should in fact be denied. They're a damn staffing agency, they should only be finding jobs for people who are ALREADY in the country.

      • Yup. It is nothing against the people themselves. I've met a lot of great people who were contract workers. But regardless of what experience level is claimed most of these workers are "freshers" and for the same money or less you could hire 23 yr olds of literally any educational (or lack thereof) background and they'd do about as well. Why not just do that here?

        There is signal in that noise, give them a year or two of actual experience and you'll start to see it.

    • Re:This has nothing to do with diversity (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Arethan ( 223197 ) on Saturday May 21, 2022 @10:52PM (#62555622) Journal

      All large companies do this.

      I don't know who you work for, but if I ever saw this sort of crap going on within my group's hiring pipeline, I'd be calling corporate legal the same day to inform them that I'm about to call half a dozen news agencies right after we hang up. There's literally no place within business for this sort of crap practice to endure. Everything literally goes downhill from this sort of precipice. Employees that see it and fail to act are simply complicit.

      • Re:This has nothing to do with diversity (Score:4, Insightful)

        by BoB235423424 ( 6928344 ) on Saturday May 21, 2022 @11:46PM (#62555662)

        It's what happens when you replace hiring with quotas based on race and gender. You might have a great internal referral or cross-department hire lined up, but quotas say you must interview someone with certain superficial qualities before you can make an offer. It's not hiring managers being unethical, it's them working around asinine requirements created for public perception. All those requirements are really going to do is burn out the groups of people that they're supposedly meant to help since they're a small portion of the recruitment pool and they get invited to a plethora of interviews for positions they won't get (not because of their superficial traits, but because the position was already filled by a qualified candidate).

        • It's what happens when you replace hiring with quotas based on race and gender.

          No it's not. This practice has predated any of the modern race / gender quotas. The only difference between now and in the past was that rather than having to write a job position out internally even if it has already been decided who gets the job, is that someone of the target gender / race now needs to apply.

          The underlying principles have exited for many decades.

      • Re:This has nothing to do with diversity (Score:4, Informative)

        by Arzaboa ( 2804779 ) on Sunday May 22, 2022 @12:37AM (#62555714)

        Interviewing people that never had a chance, has been going on for my entire career. I've seen it at multiple companies.

        I never saw anything specifically about diversity, but definitely to cover other regulations, laws and internal policies. Just one of many examples; Internal promotions because the internal policies state, "Must interview at least 3 people," and there are no exceptions.

        In many of these cases it was all about requirements that no one signed up for, might have looked good on paper, but didn't make a ton of sense for 100% of cases. Try sorting that one out in legalese.

        I would have enjoyed watching you go tell legal about something they prescribed.

        --
        It's one thing to shoot yourself in the foot. Just don't reload the gun. - Lindsey Graham

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dstwins ( 167742 )
        I think you forget that most people just want to do their job and fear company retaliation (like what this guy is going through).. Basically in a game of "us vs. them". if the "Them" is bigger than you and if you don't have recorded receipts, its pretty much an uphill battle... a David vs. Goliath (and not every David is a winner in this game.. in fact, most simply get squished)

        There are always a few with heart and integrity in the group that will speak up.. and they are usually then black balled in their i

      • Not the OP, but every single company I've worked for has done this. Hello I was the subject of it in the last department change, it was a case where they literally stacked the knob description to make sure only I fit the job description, (fire fighting experience for a desk job anyone?), And then provide to write it the position internally for the minimum allowable time period.

        I was the only one who applied *shockedpikachu* and we also had to have a female on my sham interview panel who told me it was s sha

      • I agree. In fact, the problem is not the policy that encourages diverse hiring, but rather the practice of promising a job to someone before conducting proper interviews. In my experience, when someone uses their authority to priomise a job to someone it allows bias, personal preference, and intimate relationships to play too large a role in the process. Yes there are times when there really may be only one perfectly suited candidate and his or her name is known beforehand, but even so one should not assume

    • Re: This has nothing to do with diversity (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JeffOwl ( 2858633 ) on Saturday May 21, 2022 @11:00PM (#62555628)
      Company I worked for had a policy of interviewing a minimum of 3 candidates for hires from outside the department. Even if they knew who they wanted. But they were careful to not promise the job to anyone before all interviews were done. I was asked to interview for a job once because they only had two applicants. This is the kind of behavior you get when your policies are not well thought out.

      • I couple of times I've found people out in the wild, who interviewed and passed with flying colours. It isn't common though. Usually there is planning and forethought that has gone into the composition of a team that is based on certain people being available. If those people were not available, the job reqs would not have been written that way.

        What doesn't work is deciding you need a person to hire now, with no idea who beyond a skillset and asking HR to find them. That person will not be available and you

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by chihowa ( 366380 )

          What does work is the grazing model. Have your requirements and always be looking. When a stellar candidate comes along, hire them even without a specific job req.

          Unless you have good recruiters or "talent acquisition" teams (barf), you're not guaranteed to hear of this candidate without an open req. The networks of existing employees only reach so far.

          I've found that the best approach is a req that's tailored to the group's goals and processes, but that's sufficiently vague about the skills and background required. Be ready to get a bunch of chaff to dismiss and be upfront with HR about actually passing all of the applicants along instead of doing their usual incomp

          • My experience - small company - good hiring practice. Big company - bad hiring practice.
            I don't expect it to improve.

    • The claim is that they are specifically having would-be diversity hires put through these worthless interviews, so they can claim they're interviewing such but just can't find any to hire. That makes it have something to do with diversity.

    • Perfect, exactly what I was gonna say.

      Not sure it is still done, but for H1B, the job ad would be posted in the NY times or Wall Street Journal instead of the local paper. This satisfied the advertising requirement. Again, not sure this is still allowed. Learned about this decades ago when a co-worker's student visa ran out and the company wanted to convert her to a H1B.

      Then again, for certain degrees, do not let the brain drain occur. I believe we should give a H1B or even a green card for certain degree

  • You get the job by getting to know the people there who will hire you, except perhaps some entry level positions. Management creates an "opening" you apply, wink wink nudge nudge you talk the talk walk the walk, and presto - youre part of the club.

  • You might, you know, simply hire the best candidate for the job based on their experience and credentials. But all this garbage about the workplace supposedly being "better" simply because the skin color of your employees is evenly distributed means businesses will keep wasting time on this stuff.

    The Dilbert cartoon ran a whole series of strips on this very topic, just recently.

    • Oh businesses aren't "wasting time" at all. It's far cheaper to police employees in what they say, add a new "___ awareness month", add a signature to some petition referencing the most recent moral panic, etc. rather than increase employee compensation or turn down contracts from China.

      A new positional morality which requires no sacrifice, blames society, upbringing, etc. for any problems, and sets employees at each others throats is a fantastic investment for any corporation.

    • You really believe that there would be no fake interviews 'if "diversity wasn't such a focus'?
  • On the other hand, I guess there is some value in perpetuating the illusion that life is fair.

  • Which metric? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by freeze128 ( 544774 ) on Sunday May 22, 2022 @12:57AM (#62555732)
    Which matters more: Diversity in giving INTERVIEWS, or diversity in number of people EMPLOYED? Interviews are throw-away... You don't have any obligation to hire based on them, and you can interview any ethnic group you want. However, what really matters is the diversity of employees that you have actually employed.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MysteriousPreacher ( 702266 )

      'Diversity', in the context of immutable characteristics, doesn't matter. Either hire people because they're the best for the job or be a racist who collects human beings like they're Pokemon.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        You have it backwards. If your hiring process results in your team being all the same race, same gender, same age range or whatever, then your process is clearly not attracting or selecting the best people.

        • You have it backwards. If your hiring process results in your team being all the same race, same gender, same age range or whatever, then your process is clearly not attracting or selecting the best people.

          Most people like people most like themselves and such and such. As a programmer who has been out of work long enough to consider using "ex-programmer" to describe myself, I was rarely judged or even given technical tasks. I would say that the first barrier to pass is the social barrier, then you get into the competency arena. As much as everyone loves to throw around an -ism they're the victim of, I can't help but think that it's a matter of being on the wrong side of understandable human nature. When you

        • So youâ(TM)re saying brick layers and nursing facilities somehow have problems with their interview process for not being able to hire 50/50 distribution of qualified male/female staff.

          You, are a moron.

        • [citation needed]. OK, I hate it when people do that because it's stupid, so let me just add that what you say isn't true unless you have a sufficiently large team to force the statistics beyond reason.

        • You have it backwards. If your hiring process results in your team being all the same race, same gender, same age range or whatever, then your process is clearly not attracting or selecting the best people.

          It doesn't mean that at all. Some jobs, for whatever reason, by and large attract a certain demographic. Most k-12 teachers for example are female, very few men even apply at all. A lot of programmers tend to gravitate towards white and asian males of younger ages. In my experience, a lot of programmers move on to something else as they age; often management, which means the pool of older candidates is likely smaller. And I'm speaking as somebody who picked up programming later in life; from what I've seen

        • Yes, it can appear that way if you ignore all other variables, opting instead to assume something is wrong when there isn't a Burger King kids Club level of representation in desirable jobs. That's silly even by your standards.

        • Nonsense. I was on the hiring board for a Public sector job opening, with a base level technical job being advertised across multiple websites. Hiring was COMPLETELY race/gender/whatever blind, with a multi step process that masked the applicants name with a number:

          1) anyone applying needed a resume with a minimum requirement,

          2)Anyone meeting step 1 took a multiple choice test(200 applicants).

          3) Anyone passing step 2 took a hands on equipment troubleshooting examination (50 applicants)

          4) Anyone passing

    • Interviews are throw-away...

      While I agree in principle with your comment, the reality is interviews are the first gate that many minorities don't pass. I actually think it's far more important to have diversity at the interview than in employment. Interviews are about giving people a chance, but employment should be based on merit.

  • I searched, soul crushingly, for work over a very long period. Most interviews were hostile, technical skills were rarely tested. Immediately upon meeting the team for the interview I knew I was out. I don't blame any prejudice or -ism but simply see it as human nature that no toothless law can combat. I was an outlier in one or more demographics and in my gut I knew (as I'm sure the opposing party did as well), "Nope, not him." And yeah, 45 year old white male feeling like an outlying statistic. The madd
  • Don't ever give people special opportunities and privileges based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, disability (real or imaginary), etc. Old concept that needs to remain in place regardless of who makes up the majority or the minority.

  • Been the victim of one at a government agency. The manager told me they were hiring an internal candidate when I walked in the door but they needed to interview someone externally because of departmental policies.

    I was so taken aback I didn't even think to walk out. It was the worst, most demeaning experience I've ever had in an interview... Two guys who clearly weren't interested in a single thing I had to say and were just filling in time before lunch.

  • A single person cannot be diverse, only a group of people.

  • Everywhere applications are going into the round file because of race, ethnicity, gender, etc.. And companies are getting away with it because it has to be proven that this was indeed the case.

    A job application can be rejected in the USA because the employer did not like the color of your suit, and when he or she is called out for discrimination, that employer can claim that or a million other things.

    The anti-discrimination laws look good on paper but rarely does it work out in reality.

    Well

  • Yes, fake interviews happened to me; but they had nothing to do with diversity. I am a white male.

    In the 1990s, I was unemployed. I saw a help-wanted ad from Amgen, the biologic pharmaceutical company. The location was closer to my house than any of my prior employment. I was interviewed and then called back for another interview. That second interview left me feeling very positive. However, I never got an offer. I knew someone in a related department and asked her to find out what happened. The hir

  • Most large companies have requirements to interview several candidates before choosing one for a position. And that's still a requirement even when you've already got the ideal person lined up.

    Not saying that Wells Fargo wasn't fucking this up, but many employees don't understand the compliance rules.

  • There are interview processes that are basically fishing for good employees. I've seen them, and they are not processed for a specific job slot.

    But if these assholes are differentiating between "race" and "Gender" or genitals, they are plain idiots.

    Now that being said, I'm not really comfortable with the idea of wholesale interviewing for positions that don't exist yet. But it exists, and in today's world, you must avoid any inference that you are discriminating against anyone.

  • You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.

Slashdot Top Deals

2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League

Close