Regarding return to office policy, I hear many speculations and reasons hypothesized. Mostly by employees who don’t really know and who had no choice in it.
I would like to know is if there are any lemmings out there who have been involved in these talks.
What was discussed?
How is something like this coordinated amongst others businesses even rivals.
What are the high level factors that have gone into the decision?
Bonus points: is it even possible for employees to prevent or reverse these policies at this point?
In my corporate experiences, these decisions were made unilaterally by the C suite without discussion.
This is pretty much the answer everywhere. So this post must be targeting c suite folks… on Lemmy.
Yes, hi, we do exist. And we were trying to get CEO to implement a hybrid policy for years before covid. He hated the thought. And he was the type of person that would not hesitate to fire an entire department if they felt bold enough to complain about it. When I started there, I didn’t immediately report to him. Anyone there who had a layer of management between themselves and him had a pretty ok work experience there. Direct reports to CEO basically had to manage a toddler who was also the emporor with new clothes. I took the promotion to be his whipping post because I wanted to leverage it to move on. Instead now I have PTSD from an abusive boss and am not able to work full time.
tl;dr – the C suite does discuss things amongst themselves with and without the CEO. But CEO already knows what they want to do, usually can’t be swayed, can only be warned what the consequences of their decisions will bring.
Our office allowed voting to elect a committee to determine what return to office should look like. I was elected to it. They also hired external contractors to mediate basically. Some people came into it thinking everyone should go back to office, but by the end of it we settled that being in office should be required for certain types of work activities and not for others, and apart from the required activities for in office employees could be wherever. We drafted this up into a formalized agreement and everyone was happy with it.
Then the president who did that program retired and the new guy immediately scrapped the whole thing and forced everyone back into the office overnight without any discussion from the committee or other employees.
Sounds legit
I can’t speak to what’s said in the meetings, but in a similar vein, we were told we needed to come back to the office 2-days a month because other people had to work from the office, and it wasn’t fair to them.
That’s it. That’s the rationale. Because it wasn’t fair to the people who had to be here. Mind you, my team has been successfully working remote since COVID.
🤦♂️ fml
It’s funny to me because of the return to office policy, the price of parking is going up, a lot. Like now I have to fight for an extra $2000 for parking + $1000 for meals + whatever day care will be.
Yep. I suspect that where I work, parking has some role to play in the RTO. I can imagine the department in charge of collecting parking fees saw a dramatic decrease in revenue.
It that what I think matters to anyone (where I work), but any company that owns and manages their own parking facilities should not make employees pay for parking. It’s just bad form. But what do I know?
Make a sandwich. You don’t have to buy meals.
The rest sucks, though.
That’s what I do.
Sandwiches don’t grow on trees. Peanut butter is banned in the office. Deli meat is expensive.
Well then explain this one smarty pants!
Hole in one, checkmate! Pshh.
:P
Peanut butter is banned in the office
Most schools have even backed off on trying to do this. For children. Why are adults prevented from eating what they want? No one should be touching othe people’s foods.
Peanut butter is sticky. I’ve seen what people do with gum. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ban it in places.
If you’re worried about an adult making a peanut butter mess, that motherfucker should not have a job.
It happens. It’s why we all clean our kitchen everyday. Peanut allergies rose a lot in the past few decades. It’s not like they just get hives. It’s not a hard thing to give up at work or school considering it could kill them. Like in my office we don’t even have assigned desks. I see people leaving crumbs all the time. Imagine them munching away on a bag of peanuts. They’re leaving that dust and crap all over the place. It’s such a small consideration that makes a huge QOL improvement for others. It doesn’t bother me at all.
It’s my understanding that some people have such an allergic reaction that even the smell fucks them up. It may sound silly, but compassion is in short supply these days, and subsequently should be lauded when seen in the wild.
I just make a bit extra for supper every night, and put it in a fridge, the leftovers are then my meal a couple days latter (never the next day - that gets boring!)
At the beginning of COVID, when our CEO decided all non-essential staff should immediately begin working from home wherever possible, our CIO declared all of IT to be essential on-site. Shortly after the meeting when the CIO made that announcement, people at my level (bottom-level manager) essentially all announced to our supervisors that we were going to refuse to abide by that directive.
My direct supervisor told us to relax and essentially said that the entire management team was going to sit the CIO down and have a come to Jesus meeting. Shortly after that the directive was reversed, and it was left up to managers to decide if their team could be WFH, hybrid, or fully on-site. It’s hard to stay CIO if the entire IT group is in revolt.
For many months after that, in the regular management meetings, the CIO would talk about how difficult it was and how everyone was suffering due to the requirement to work from home. He would talk about how many people told him they were longing for the day when we could all be on-site again. I have no idea who those people were, because everyone I spoke to thought WFH was fantastic.
I have heard that when productivity didn’t drop, the CEO asked, “Why are we paying all these high rents for office space if everyone is just as productive and happier working from home?” It was around that time that the CIO started to talk about WFH like it was a good thing.
At this point, there’s no sign it will ever end. We are allowed to hire people from out-of-state and most people are WFH full time. They’ve reduced office space to the point where we all couldn’t work on-site even if we wanted to.
He would talk about how many people told him they were longing for the day when we could all be on-site again. I have no idea who those people were, because everyone I spoke to thought WFH was fantastic.
My old CEO would pull this bullshit, too. He’d say like “I’ve heard from people that [wild claim]”. The team was like 5 people it’s not like I couldn’t go ask people if they actually said that. I think it’s some sort of asshole-lying mechanism.
CIO been spending their money on REIT shares…
If you accepted a remote job, you should have it in writing that the job is ‘remote’ work.
If your job wasn’t remote initially, but assumed it would be remote going forward, you should have demanded that the job has changed to ‘remote’ in writing.
If your job wasn’t initially remote, was temporarily made remote, and they are now changing back. Be prepared to walk.
In the US we have like no laws protecting labor. They’ll just tell you to go into the office, or fire you.
I hate this line of reasoning. It’s not something I subscribe to. We’re not robots. We’re not blindly following some set of logic rules. There’s no humanity in that.
My job was remote to start. Even if it wasn’t, this line of reasoning isn’t something I would ever use. Just because it was or was not a thing does not mean we’re forced to just accept things and not want life to be better. Especially if it’s a business decision based on things that do not make sense. Squeaky wheels get the grease. C suite makes decisions on information and if all people never spoke up just because things were a certain way when they arrived then nothing would change.
I think you’re still kind of screwed if they want you in the office and you’re officially remote.
But - yes - if your manager changes that does kind of protect you from sudden expectations from them of coming in.
I think you’re still kind of screwed if they want you in the office and you’re officially remote.
Depends on what you mean by ‘screwed’. If they hired you with certain expectations, like in writing job is ‘remote’, then you can refuse.
If they fire you as a result, yes, you are ‘screwed’ in the case of you’ve lost your job,
But you then sue for wrongful dismissal, in which case you have some recourse.
But if you live in a country/state that doesn’t allow you to do that, and offers no employee protections,
You were screwed from the beginning by accepting work in such a place to begin with.
But you then sue for wrongful dismissal, in which case you have some recourse.
Not in the US. “Remote worker” is not a protected class.
But if you live in a country/state that doesn’t allow you to do that, and offers no employee protections, you were screwed from the beginning by accepting work in such a place to begin with.
Yes, definitely the fault of every worker in the US for accepting work … checks notes … in the US.
It doesn’t need to be a ‘protected class’.
If you were hired as an accountant, and job description explains what the job entails.
The boss can’t tell you to go out front and mow the grass, and fire you if you refuse.
It’s not in your job description.
Same with remote work. If the job description said 100% remote work.
It would be the same as hiring someone in one city, and then demanding they move to another city, and firing you if you refuse.
Sure, they can let you go, but they’d be on the hook for compensation. (in most civilized places anyway)
It doesn’t need to be a ‘protected class’.
[In the US,] Yes it does.
The boss can’t tell you to go out front and mow the grass, and fire you if you refuse.
Yes they can.
Sure, they can let you go, but they’d be on the hook for compensation. (in most civilized places anyway)
Not compensation, but unemployment incsurance claims. If you’re let go “without cause,” you get to claim unemployment, and the business that let you go has to pay some portion of that. Unemployment insurance barely pays anything, though, so that’s not going to be a very high amount for the business.
It’s not in your job description.
I’ve noticed a lot of job offers say like “Other duties as required”
You are not going to outsmart the corporate lawyers.
The rich have class solidarity.
You can still sue if you find a lawyer who is willing to do it.
Pennsylvania is an “At Will” state, so in theory my wife could have fired any employee just because she felt like it. However, the steps laid out by our lawyer for firing someone were quite extensive.
We needed to have extensive documentation of failures and performance issues on file before we could consider it.
That’s also why my employer has such an extensive coaching and documentation process for poorly performing employees. The policy documents describe it as a way to ensure all employees have the opportunity and support they need to improve, but the real reason is definitely to protect against lawsuits.
Of course, if anyone in the US is thinking of moving to another state, this might be useful:
https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/economic-justice/workers-rights/best-states-to-work/
I was going to suggest that you’d want to cross-reference other details as well, such as if the state allows doctors to refuse to treat you because they think their magic sky-daddy doesn’t want them to.
I’m grateful for being hired on during COVID for this. My job description specifically says remote.
Bonus is that I work for a union and they have our backs. Even as the company tightens down on cyber security and starts forcing people to use the Ethernet or else apps on their personal phones (big no from me) to log into certain things - even with that, the union has our back and is making the company give us options to remain fully remote.
Written where? We don’t generally have employment contracts in the US.
You don’t get a letter of employment offer?
There might be a written agreement of what the work, hours, compensation agreed to is, but that’s not a contract for employment to the degree of “if the employee fulfills the conditions of this contract, they can’t be terminated.”
I did. That’s not the same thing as an employment contract. And whatever is on that letter can be changed without much, if any, notice.
Excuse me but what the fuck?
Having that in writing won’t help a great deal. Even if somehow you make it binding, you’re still employed at-will. Unless you’re saying to make sure you have a full employment contract in place. Which, yeah, wouldn’t that be nice?
- finding and hiring staff will be harder
- attracting top tier talent will be harder
- rent will be more expensive
- childcare will require more sick leave
- illness will require more sick leave
- expanding to new territories will be harder
The c-suite evaluated the cost of rent pretty good and had an existing problem of not being able to hire above average younger talent because the work they were doing was pretty boring. Advertising a good hybrid wfh policy (once a week or once a month in-office depending on different factors) has brought in good people.
Basically, they saw that it was bringing in cash.
The biggest challenge has been getting new hires integrated well with existing team leaders.
There’s also team leaders that refuse to use Teams/zoom, but also don’t answer their phone. In the past you could corner them in their office but now they sort of anchor their team. It’s mostly self-repairing as they stagnate and other teams flourish.
There was no discussion. The CEO likes it this way. His bootlickers invented a bunch of bullshit justifications in order to make the RTO rules seem to have reasons, but there isn’t one other than the CEO likes it this way.
People have tried to discuss it reasonably but it has become clear that it is an emotional matter for the CEO and discussing it like adults is not possible.
CEOs basically have to do it, and most want to. And they think “hey I’m the CEO so I must be doing something right - my way is clearly the best way.” And that’s that in their minds. Hustle culture goes all the way to the top CEOs in the world. They just use different language, like “you must be driven, you need to want it more, if you don’t move aggressively to succeed then your competitors will…” they truly believe it’s the correct and virtuous life. To force it on others, in their mind, is doing them a favor.
Why do they have to?
I guess they don’t, I was just thinking of how their job is essentially meeting and talking with lots of people, including inside and outside the company, and this benefits from in-person interactions moreso than, say, a programmer’s job does. It would have been more accurate if I’d said a CEO’s job is easier to do well and more enjoyable when everyone is in the office.
I completely agree! I would then ask that the CEO force his bootlickers back into the office, but leave everyone else alone. It’s not like he would ever degrade himself as to speak to the unwashed peasantry that is the employees.
Well that’s for sure. But this is where their egos go big. They aren’t about optimizing just their job and leaving others alone. No, if it’s their way, it must be the best way. After all, how could anyone want or need anything other than they do? Unless something’s wrong with them! /s
I’ve been in discussions regarding returning to the office for my group, whether other groups should return to the office, and whether to keep the days in the office or add more.
For returning to the office, a lot of it came down to collaboration. My team does not use online communication tools to the quantity that it can substitute for in person communication. I advocated for a return to office for most staff, in part to benefit junior staff who weren’t communicating and needed mentorship. That meant the entire team had to show up on the same days, but I let them pick the days and changed those days on their request. The intent of the in person days is for them to talk to each other and coordinate.
One group resisted coming into the office far longer than mine. They were pushed into coming into the office, along with a change in reporting, because that group was blowing budgets and missing deadlines. I said you can bring them into the office, but you have to change their group culture to be more collaborative and talk to each other. It has been an issue working with members of that group because they’ve gotten used to a lack of coordination and communication, which created poor work quality.
When asked to go full RTO or increase days, I’ve pushed back. My group is mostly meeting deadlines and I see diminishing returns for more days into the office. I’m also aware it is a perk for staff, and not one I want to pull away. However, the gap in online versus physical interaction is still there.
If you’re going to fight back against coming into the office more, then you’re going to need to argue on the basis of coordination and collective productivity. I’ve seen a lot of people claim individual productivity, but that included a lot of rework that could have been avoided with some five minute conversations. Not emails, conversations.
On the flip side, if coordination isn’t a big deal, don’t expect raises any time soon. At that point, you’re a more easily replacable cog whose work can get pushed to places with lower costs of living.
I really dislike that a handful of people who can’t get their shit together to communicate over zoom are dragging everyone else (and the environment) down.
I’d also wager that some of those people also communicate badly in person, but at least do communication shaped activities so it gets a pass.
Like at my old job, there’d be long meetings both in person and over zoom where nothing would be accomplished. The problem is not if we’re in the same room or not. It’s that people don’t know what the fuck they’re doing at any level of this task. They don’t understand the system, and they don’t know how to run a meeting. The few times I just seized control and ran it like a D&D session went better. eg: "It’s not your turn. Please wait to speak. That’s an interesting idea but the
game we set out to playmeeting is about [topic], so we’re going to stay on topic. No,the rules say you can’t do thatthat’s not an option in a web browser.That worked fine in person and on zoom. The problem isn’t the medium. The problem is people.
That worked fine in person and on zoom. The problem isn’t the medium. The problem is people.
Yeah, but the problem of management is people. And I’ve pointed out that management aren’t always the people who don’t communicate. And issues with communication are made worse when everything is pushed to text where nuance is lost and everything is archived which can be used against you.
There are probably some teams that can work well remotely, but a lot of teams can’t. I generally find the best people who work remotely are highly competent at their job. Most people aren’t highly competent at their jobs.
And issues with communication are made worse when everything is pushed to text where nuance is lost and everything is archived which can be used against you.
There’s some truth to this, but also video chat is commonplace now. That can be recorded too, but so can anything. Some of my coworkers started using Signal for out of band communication even though zoom/slack said they didn’t retain any recordings.
If they can’t work remotely, they should be leveled up. Stop dragging everyone else down.
And again, if you can only communicate in person you’re probably bad at communicating in person, too, without realizing it. I think a lot of CEO types think they’re amazing because they walk into a room and everyone’s like “yeah boss got it that’s great feedback”, and they don’t realize they just said a bunch of garbage and people just agreed because he’s the boss.
Sooooo the highly competent people will go work at remote offices and the ones that force in office work will have the others?
Sounds fair to me.
Not emails, conversations.
Do you believe such conversations are impossible by telephone?
Not impossible, but 80% of human communication is non-verbal. When we converse, we’re not mere robots passing data back and forth.
I had an employer that took a survey and had managers get feedback from their teams. The most common thing seemed to be wfh from it was not all of it. In discussions many would not mind having an office option for those who preferred it and as an emergency place to go if one lost power/internet and for some big time meetings (project scope type of things). Ultimately the companies formal policy was work where you want to but they rented so they basically stopped renewing contracts. By the time I left they had three offices. One was the original office of the company in the stix that they owned. The other was a new headquarters on the east coast and the last was in atlanta and im pretty sure that would go away once it contract ended. Would not be surprised if they sold the original office if they could get a good price.
It seems surprisingly reasonable.
The only similar meeting I’ve been in was how to handle the aspect of of the job that could not be done remotely.
While Wfh was common, even before covid, there was workshop jobs that could not be done remotely.
The conclusion was to rotate who went in so as to limit infection risk. One at a time.
My company required everyone come back to the office. My team works in a terminal, we can do our work from anywhere. Everyone of my department went back in. I said no.
They said I could be terminated
I said go ahead and fire me, I’m the lead tech, 40 experience, I built and maintain more then half of the automation, I’m the only one who understands networking onprem and I cloud and has a security background.
I dare you.
They said they would make a special exemption for me.
The moral of the story… You can demand stuff from your company if your company can’t function without you.
Can you hire me and teach me the way 😆
You’re what I want to be when I grow up. I’m middle aged.
very depressing, I barely tried on the handjob.
Bonus points: is it even possible for employees to prevent or reverse these policies at this point?
UNIONIZE
The meeting was pretty much, we are going back to work in the office. I went back for the time it took me to find a remote job
Boiled down to “Me in charge. Come in” as a response to leadership.The reality is they rented out an office to hold 200 people, laid off half of them, and then were upset the place always looked empty when they brought clients around. It went from “You all need to be in office on Wednesdays, so we look like a big company”, to wanting everyone to return.
The problem is a good majority of people had moved away during covid. Those were the first people to be laid off unless they were superstars. They had a lease agreement until 2026 and were already subletting the previous offices (They kept moving into new spaces as they grew before other leases were up) that also had long contracts. I am no longer there, but rumor is they are trying to sublet the 200 person office and find yet another small space. They are slowly turning into a real estate company.
