Anyone required to come back into the office but other team members on the team who also live in the state (and relatively close the office) are not required. Any reason why some people are marked office centric and others are remote even within a team?
19 replies (most recent on top)
@4juf+1tP9eFYZ I literally did this, worked out so far.
Except “protected class” isn’t what is at issue here. The repeated claims are “I don’t get to do it and they do”.
If protected class was in question, then that is the issue. Here is not the case.
Rewarding those that moved to the beach is yet another poor choice.
I recommend you formally request WFH in writing and have the request be either approved or denied. Gives you a stronger case if they fire you, especially if you have peers who have been granted “special” work from home privileges.
I’m just not going to do the four days. I have enough to not really worry about what happens to me. Doubt my
managers will do anything but if they do… whatever
All it takes is for an employee in a protected class or who has recently complained of unlawful activity to formally request WFH privileges and be denied under the same reporting hierarchy where other non-protected employees in the same job family and reporting hierarchy have been granted special approval to bring forth a discrimination claim.
Bottom line, all employees should be forced back into the office in a clear and consistent manner.
What if you are exceeding the 35 mile from office means in the future change?
“ Truist is opening the door for lawsuits by not applying its RTO policy across the population of employees consistently.”
No they are not. Frivolous lawsuits do not count.
When I resigned I was offered full remote to stay . Maybe for some that is the reason . I declined it because I didn’t trust them to stay true to their word . I wonder if I had stayed if I would now be going back 4 days .
I am a remote employee and have a medical accommodation in place that allows me to work from home. I am also one of the highest performers on my team. If I get terminated or dinged in my annual review for not RTO, best believe I will nail Truist with an EEOC discrimination charge and then sue in federal court.
It seems like now that we are two months out you are finally starting to hear more about it. I am curious to see where it goes. I wonder how many of us attempted to let them k ow in the 250 characters they allowed you in the survey.
I also assume we will never see these results outside of some very vague cherry picking of positive answers.
I’m in GCO and it’s ridiculous over here. Completely inconsistent. I’m remote and nervous that they’ll call me in. My boss is cool with it for now but said if they run a report on distance from office I either have to change my “home location” or start coming in. She herself would get hit too because she is “telecommute” but lives in Charlotte so I guess what’s good for the goose would be ok for the gander
If their is class action law
suit count me in. Mortgage is ripe with WFH verses RTO inequality/favortism. In a recent townhall someone asked if the Underwriters would have to RTO (they are all currently WFH). Leadership skated the answer in their typical non-answer fashion.
They are definitely not role based. There are major discrepancies between individuals with the same role type.
Truist is opening the door for lawsuits by not applying its RTO policy across the population of employees consistently.
If it were the other way around, Truist would be looking for angles within the law to defend themselves, so why shouldn’t employees do the same?
Racism?! Seriously? Can we please, just for a day, at least pretend that there are other factors and lenses applied to these policies. These are role-based decisions, not individual. Ugh.
As a manager I can say there was no favoritism in the decisions for my team. Some folks remote have medical accommodations that other teammates would not know about and I’m not at liberty to share. Others were hired as remote or had been remote for many years before the merger or Covid. We’ve been instructed to leave these individuals as remote. Anyone else that is within 35 miles of an Enterprise Technology hub is office centric.
While it’s easy to jump to conclusions about favoritism or racism just know that’s not always the case.
Some teammates may have a disability accommodation that allows WFH. Companies need to be very careful about denying WFH accommodations to employees that have disabilities. There was a federal lawsuit in charlotte where a Wells Fargo employee with a disability was denied WFH accommodation and was subsequently terminated by the bank (presumably for working remotely). The employee won $22 million against the bank. The western district of north Carolina (charlotte and where Truist is HQed) has established precedence that banks are not favored in these types of lawsuits
They're making a mistake by trying to act like a true policy with hard guidelines will exist. Just like the old days it will be up to discretion (favoritism/racism/etc) to truly decide. Awhile back I was denied remote because I was "too close to the campus" but on my commute I literally drive by the home of two of my teammates who are telecommuters.
I assume I'm just not purposing hard enough to be given special favors like them.
favoritism