I'm not the one conflating it. I've been told over and over in this thread that this customer service plan, such as it is, is legally mandated or legally forced somehow. Every time I ask "why couldn't Wyndham do any of a bevy of alternatives" the answer is it's legally prohibited in some way.
But this is my point - if they aren't mandated legally to end bookings and aren't mandated legally to keep them in Club Wyndham (i.e. keep bookings) then legally they can do either. If they're free to do either then I'm lost why we're saying there's a legal reason they can't be clear about what they're doing.
I'm not a lawyer, which I have stated at least a couple of times in this thread, so I don't know what the legal requirements are and I never claimed to. I did work for a huge national corporation with a well-paid legal department. I know in these situations, the company executives do what their attorneys advise them to do. That's why they pay them so much. They want the best legal advice they can get.
Saying "Wyndham has lawyer advice to do XXX" is pretty different from how I and many others would interpret "legal reasons". I agree, we have no idea why the lawyers might suggest doing something (but there are lots of reasons that amount to one estimation of possible lawsuits vs another), but that's very different to suggesting (as some of us understood people to be saying) that there were laws or court imposed rules that essentially are a gag order on Wyndham in this regard.
The answer to this question is that, provided you accept the 1:1 CWA points swap for your OIRC contract, the reservation will not be impacted in any way. So yes Wyndham will perform a 1:1 points swap in the system, at no cost, after you sign the required paperwork, and your 2026 vacation will remain intact.
I was not able to get a definitive answer on this question today. There will be an update from Wyndham in October, best estimate, that will provide an explicit contact phone number and/or email address for these types of questions, the answers to which will vary dependent upon the structure of each owner's account ownership of course.
Sorry for the confusion, but if an attorney advises you to do something, there is a legal reason for that advice.
So much for being specific and expecting an answer. I do appreciate you taking the time to ask the question. Just to re-iterate, so my comment is not misunderstood a second time, I was trying to see if Wyndham would go ahead and answer the following question: "What will they do about 2026 points already used this year and 2026 reservations already made at resorts managed by them in 2026 when those points come from converted weeks at resorts that will not be managed by Wyndham beginning in 2026 and the owner will not be taking the offer to convert to CWA." I was not talking about 2026 reservations at resorts they would not be managing anymore. I stated that they should already know how they will be handling that situation and should be willing to let us know. It appears that is not the case at this time. I am now officially in the "very disappointed with Wyndham's lack of communication" camp of folks now.
You've not been told that, at least not by me. The HOA processes are controlled by the bylaws, along with applicable county, state, and federal laws. Laws often dictate disclosure requirements and lawyers often advise on when and how to disclose certain data at certain points in time, based upon their expertise and the legal ramifications (risks) of premature disclosures. As previously pointed out, the lawyers could care less about customer service, they are paid to minimize risk and deliver certain legal outcomes. Period, full stop. Wyndham is exercising caution given the unprecedented approaches in play, as their lawyers are no doubt advising. I can tell you with 100% certainty that the customer service leadership within Wyndham would have already communicated certain aspects if they could. Legal has prevented them from doing so. That means the legal department, that must approve any/all customer facing communications for these actions, has prevented forward looking statements from being published. You can dislike it all you want, that's the simple truth.
As is clearly evidenced by the HOA votes at OIRC, as soon as the 2026 operations vote was passed to cease resort operations effective 12/31/2025, within 24 hours the OIRC inventory was blocked off. This was the requirement set down by the Wyndham legal representation involved in these actions. It really is irrelevant what you, or I, or anyone else thinks or believes.
While on a human level I agree, employment law in many states requires employee notice. It also allows retention strategies, like stay till end bonuses to be put into play. I would imagine if they didn't tell the employees ahead of time, when they found out a sudden mass exodus would occur.
A sh*tstorm.
Actually, all states except one are at-will employment. So they don't require any kind of employee notice. State and federal law requires WARN notices, but those notices are to state and federal regulators not employees.
Wyndham has over 500,000 owners. They will certainly be surprised when a “huge majority” of those show up at 12 resorts that have shown declining owner occupancy over the past few years. How many are you expecting will show up? 300,000? 400,000?
But those notices still don't apply to notification to the employees. The notices related to number of employees are WARN notices and apply to those companies with 100 or more employees. I am not saying that giving them notice isn't a good thing. It actually is, but I was responding to a specific post stating it as a fact, which it isn't. They also stated that it helps with retention. I would say it does the opposite unless retention incentives are attached.
They told me that. I am sure they lied when they said they Crestview section of shawnee was staying open and if I wanted to book there I needed to buy 500,000 CWA points for $158,000. I own over 1.1 million resell points that I may have paid $3,000 or so.
