Has anyone noticed that the new FAQs about time tracking don't state punishments for low compliance?
18 replies (most recent on top)
@gx That's where I'm at. It's unethical for them to go back on their job offers (it's one thing for new openings), and it's insulting to professionals to be micromanaged and lied to constantly.
@en thing is, I don't even mind going in. For what I need out of my life it works fine for me. What I do mind is being told how often, and for how long, and it being tied to my performance.
@en I can't speak for your direct reports, but I can say this: we "line workers" on my team in particular know where the blame lies: the Management Committee. We know those in your position are stuck enforcing something that doesn't always make sense. I just wish we'd go back to, "common sense," location assignments. I do no great service in my HUB taking up a desk someone who actually has a business line counterpart on site could utilize better than I can.
The punishment is joblessness. Why would you think otherwise? They'll keep bumping the in office hours up incrementally until the desired number of employees have been terminated without severance benefits. it's an opportunity to reduce the expense of reducing expenses. They can get to the same savings with fewer bodies. it's very McKinseyian
@ea The FAQ itself says that falling short will lead to conversations at most. I really doubt that 55-60% will lean anyone into heavy monitoring territory. Maybe 20-30%, but not people right at the cusp of passing.
I'm a manager and hate RTO with a passion. Parking and additional taxes cost me thousands for a job that was offered to me as remote. I hate having to enforce it and the biggest fight I've had with a DR was over non- compliance. At the end of the day though, everyone above me gets the reporting, and either I put compliance on the individual, or those above me come down on me for my DRs numbers. Don't be naive in thinking it'll slide, the question is whether your leadership let's you get them in trouble too.
@dk I'm a generally pretty complaint person, and had never been on anyone's radar since returning in 2024. My manager was very forthcoming about the fact that my less than 60% (I'm at like 55-58% because Jan/Feb were horrendous months for illnesses, but this is absolutely the hill they'll die on) retroactively will potentially flag me for closer monitoring. So I am to be triple sure I'm making if not exceeding that 60% and not drawing attention via the amount of time I spend in office. They're a very laid back non-micromanager leader, so this isn't said lightly. Anyone that thinks they can get around it will find themselves jobless in a terrible market. Like, people can do whatever they want but I wish people would stop acting like this isn't something they'll fire people for. That's just stupid.
@dk correction. I know of four people. Not five. The fifth person was going to get fired anyway for other reasons but they also did not come in.
People, get real. I hate RTO as much as the rest of you, but I will say this. I'm a manager and I know for a FACT I know of five people who have been fired for not returning to the office. It was not sudden, they had lots of chances but they are now no longer in the employee directory.
THEY WILL FIRE YOU IF YOU DON'T GET YOUR BUTT IN.
Anyone here who says you won't get fired has no clue what they're talking about.
@ap Why do you think this company wouldn't fire people over RTO?
@ap what? You’re contradicting yourself.
Ooooooh, okay, you're safe then! Keep up the great investigative work!
@ap to say this is disingenuous. They absolutely will let people go over non-compliance. They'll take ANY reason to let someone go without severance.
I hate how we're all operating as if the RTO numbers in the elementary dashboard are still accurate lol. I'm going to keep submitting tickets as proof during bonus time.
The reporting is incorrect for many employees they need to fix that before punishing someone that will only end in lawsuits.
this corporation will not be firing people for being out of compliance with RTO. Yes you'll get your needs improvement rating and have a decreased or non existent bonus but we're not firing people. It too costly/risky legally. No one's getting terminated over RTO.
It's one of your goals for your performance evaluation. If you don't comply you can get rated "needs improvement" and have your bonus cut and possibly get targeted for termination. The whole thing is completely stupid, but that's the reality of what got implemented by the incompetent exec leadership team.
They never stated punishments for not coming in to begin with so I'm not sure why you think they would put this out there?