Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DannyLameJokes t1_j6kcbof wrote

They also previously changed their tuition reimbursement from $18k to like $5k and didn’t make an exception for people already enrolled.

Also one day they announced everyone will have to work an extra half hour a day without a pay increase

Was also told because my position I had to take two weeks vacation at at time. New hires only had ten days vacation for the first few years.

They went 2-3 years without any cost of living increases

Promotions without pay increases. And sometimes would result in becoming exempt and losing money

I’m sure there is some other shitfuckery I’m not remembering. Regret not quitting on my first day when my blowhard director was too important greet the new hires.

64

Jumpy-Natural4868 OP t1_j6kl901 wrote

Interesting. I think the two-week rule for people in certain sensitive positions with to make sure that you were gone long enough that you weren't doing anything shady because someone else would have to do your position for 2 weeks and could spot shady activity.

22

Dancing_Hitchhiker t1_j6koi2n wrote

It’s probably pretty rare but I have heard it mentioned before for the same reason you stated.

9

SecretSquirrelSauce t1_j6l2ej3 wrote

It's common in the security industry. Mandatory job rotations and vacations to ensure exactly what the person you replied to was saying. Someone out for a long time = a change in work flow that can reveal fraud/theft/etc

12

mmphoto412 t1_j6l62vk wrote

yes thats exactly what it is, and I believe its required by the OCC. However to their point that rule effectively dictates the entire use of your PTO.

9

Local_Penalty2078 t1_j6mq8gu wrote

In multiple sensitive positions I've been in at multiple institutions, the rule has always been 5 business days.

A full 2 weeks is excessive. Don't get me wrong - 2 weeks off is nice, but when that's pretty much someone's entire stock of time off that's too much.

4

tesla3by3 t1_j6kjsg7 wrote

Isn't it standard policy- maybe even FDIC rules- that most bank employees have to take two consecutive weeks?

11

dank8844 t1_j6korj3 wrote

Banks sold it as a rule, but it was a recommended safeguard to require 5 consecutive days. Worked in the Hr department of one of the other large banks in Pittsburgh and we had to navigate this issue while I was there

10

DannyLameJokes t1_j6kk5ru wrote

Not sure, but I worked at two other banks without having that policy. Could be position by position. But if your forced to have that policy then you should give your employees more time.

6

flesh2012 t1_j6koh3l wrote

It depends on position or department in the bank. Those positions are for “high risk”. They make you take two weeks off once a year to help insure you aren’t doing anything illegal that can be caught when you aren’t there to do it.

5

Corny_Toot t1_j6kyztj wrote

Which is totally cool, if you get paid for it.

2

Jumpy-Natural4868 OP t1_j6l317c wrote

Except that may be your only vacation, which sucks.

6

Corny_Toot t1_j6mnpih wrote

It does. It feels like they skip the part where treating workers well means they're less likely to pull sneaky shit.

1

Jumpy-Natural4868 OP t1_j6mqzkh wrote

I'm not sure higher pay means you do less sneaky shit, honestly.

I know it's not directly comparable, but there's a study that looked at people stealing office supplies from work, and it's the higher paid people who did that.

I also think it's an access thing -- if you have easy access, you'll be more tempted to do it, no matter what you're paid.

And in terms of altruism, data shows that people who make less money, on average, contribute a higher % of their income to charity than higher wage earners.

2

Corny_Toot t1_j6my1q4 wrote

So, I'm coming from it from the perspective of the lower end of the ranks here. Staff that might not have enough vacation time accrued for this mandatory policy, for example. If they're made whole, I believe there would be a lower risk. That also includes more than pay for sure. That's providing them respect and solid feedback. Making them feel seen, if you get what I'm saying.

It kind of reminds me of loss prevention practices for retail, honestly. Usually, the most effective thing you can do to prevent theft is just saying hello to people. So in this case, it's more being a good manager and touching base with your staff frequently enough that they feel seen, but not too much that they feel smothered.

I think you're right about access, just having access to that information is a risk factor. Everyone's motivation is different. But pay is a crucial factor in reducing risk. It might not help against someone that's already greedy, but it could prevent someone that's just desperate from making a mistake.

1

flesh2012 t1_j6kz4ht wrote

I wasn’t in one of those departments at the bank, but I’m pretty sure it was your own PTO.

2

Dancing_Hitchhiker t1_j6kob0n wrote

I have heard that they can make you take a 2 weeks off depending on your position. I have had a bunch of different positions at different banks and never had this enforced in any of my positions.

4

Jumpy-Natural4868 OP t1_j6l2xsh wrote

It's for "sensitive" jobs. Not sure who calls what jobs sensitive or not.

3

ArgyllFire t1_j6laa22 wrote

It's basically whether or not you have access to input/approve financial transactions (wires mostly).

Also, if I recall correctly they did increase starting vacation to 3-4 weeks a few years ago so I don't think people in sensitive positions have to use full vacation all at once anymore.

Other fuckery mentioned mostly still checks out.

6

thatgirl239 t1_j6mxdzc wrote

I remember when Charlie wanted to completely eliminate WFH. This was pre pandemic but employees who were full time at home were being told they would have to go in office.

And then Charlie left and took a job where he worked from NY even though the company was in LA.

Now BNY wants to do a hybrid schedule, but move everyone to the Ross street building w/shared desks. If you don’t have a desk on a day you come in, they want you to sit on couches.

I was laid off in 2019. I had a very toxic experience and had to take medical leave because my mental health got really screwed up. It was awful.

9

a_tribe_calledchris t1_j6kz3j7 wrote

Michael Baker International also did this to their tuition reimburesment. 12.5 k --> 5k then to 0. Despite being 70% of the way through my program. No recourse possible from my end.

8

contradeej t1_j6mw9mi wrote

They've been cutting benefits for years. Want to be a top firm, but keep salaries and benefits right in line with everybody else. At least the 401K match is deposited quarterly.

3

Jumpy-Natural4868 OP t1_j6kkxj0 wrote

How is their financial position? I assume they're still making $ every quarter but just not enough for the top brass?

3

These-Days t1_j6lttcu wrote

Billions returned to shareholders in buybacks quarterly

4