If there is management discretion on how they "punish" those not adhering to RTO requirements, how do they prove its not discriminatory? Seems unfair and biased if they dont apply consistent rules to all. Communicate with one another and lawyer up!
18 replies (most recent on top)
@107 even Software Engineers have been mandated to RTO. They won't even hire remote software engineers any more.
RTO or go is the actual policy. Are we really going to sit here and pretend WFH hasn't been abused to the point there's an actual "auto mouse" device you can buy? WFH only makes sense for non-internal support/customer roles. Such as software engineers, quality systems control, etc. The departure of "specialists" who WFH and have ever uttered the words "go to the branch" will be met with resounding applause all around.
@dv You sound like Elcio. Time to wash that nasty mouth with soap.
Managers really have no power of discretion, as any changes to location change has to be approved 4 levels up.
@b2 "make us uncomfortable so we quit"
But you won't...because you're a coward
@bn thank you. All this is going to do is take discretion away from managers and make it so there's hard rules, no exceptions and no discretion for everyone which is even more miserable.
@b3 having rules with no nuance and no ability to individually judge a situation is how we end up with rules that work for no one and set people up to fail.
I hate RTO as much as the next person, but this take is d-mb and how we end up with policies that are even less employee friendly than they already are. It's how we end up back in an office 5 days a week with zero flexibility. That's the only way you get whatever fairness you're asking for and then we literally all lose.
The best move is to start putting union flyers in breakdowns. They fear union talk
This is a d-mb take. The reason we have RTO instead of the pre-covid policy is precisely because we no longer allow using our brains as part of the discretionary process. We shouldn't encourage it more.
Do you really want managers to have LESS discretion not to be di-ks about RTO? If so, buzz off.
@b2 so true! This type of desperate control isnt going to lead to anything great but will drive true talent out first when the pendulum swings the other way. This way of life is dying which is why they are fighting so hard to control.
@b0 not rocket science.....impartial and just, without favoritism or discrimination. If Joe and Sally are in the same position and similarly situated and both aren't complying, both receive the same consequence. Is that really that difficult to comprehend? If I have 1 ore to split between 2 kids, I break it in half equal parts to be fair. Put the corporate kool-aid down and respect yourself enough as a person and employee to be treated fairly and equitably and with respect. I can't understand why anyone would defend biased behavior and possible discriminatory behavior from an employer. Maybe I wouldn't win against a corporate machine but Ill be dawned if I roll or bend over. This reign wont last forever ya know. They need us whether they like it, think it or know it.
@ak The world has changed and will change some more but not towards what you assume. The world is changing and the old ways are not going to work anymore and the push to these cold unassigned seats in these hubs located far from home is outdated. It’s the last ditch effort for these old almost retirees to make us uncomfortable so we quit.
@a5 I mean, you clearly have an idea of what's fair so why don't you enlighten the rest of us?
And this is exactly why the 2% rule the 98%. FEAR! We outnumber them and they dont get or stay rich without obedient loyal slaves. Just comply. Just bow your head enough for the boot on your necks to be a bit more comfortable.
Your chance of winning a lawsuit about RTO is zero. Best to quit wasting time on this and either work where your employer tells you to work, or move on to something else. No point in continuing to anguish over this. I hate RTO but the world has changed, the business has evolved and changed direction on where people are expected to be if they expect to keep their jobs. So I go in exactly 11 days per month as required and do my job.
If Joe and Sally both have the same expectations to come in 12 days a month and are in the same position and neither have medical exceptions or exemptions and neither meet the requirements but Sally is let go for not meeting the goal but Joe is not Id say there could be a case of discrimination.
Loyalty to any corporation is just harming yourself. Protect yourself because they wont.
Its not my job to measure consistency or what's reasonable but that should be an expectation we all have from our employer if they have expectations of us. You may have different standards and may be OK with a boot on your neck. Thats fine for you but not for me and some. Im asking for equality and fairness and dont think thats an unreasonable expectation.
What exactly are you hoping comes from this? Like what's your solution? What's reasonable for consistency? Because I can tell you that it's not going to work out in anyone's favor. And there's no "one size fits all".
Exempt and non-exempt are also entirely different, so you're going to have exempt people being treated like non-exempt. If your manager is being unreasonable you can go to HR.