anyone know what happens if you continue to not adhere to the 4 day mandate even after the final warning?
38 replies (most recent on top)
Guys this is all so simple. If you want or need to keep your job, then RT0 4 days a week and stop whining.
If you no not want or need your job, just do what you want and see where the chips fall.
I've found, even at Ford, if you're a superstar they'll give you more leeway.
So rock it and see how much better things get.
Or buck the system and see how far that gets you.
@v2 " not me again… how much time do you spend on here? "
you literally just wrote a full paragraph...
You always make the language sound like people just need to be more honest and things would work out.
I really wish you wouldn't come in an interject acting saying things that are far from reality intentionally. This is Ford and you are most likely not a person that understands or can relate. So instead, you come in an derail any dialogue that is productive like an a--hole instead of leaving it alone and minding your business. Why? Forcing me to respond to str8 bullsh-t and for what. What you say assumes both sides were ever negotiating in good faith. At Ford, hiring teams often have hidden agendas from the start with vulnerable and naive candidates that carry real value, vouched by their universities and vetted in advance. No amount of "honesty" changes that, and you act like people are d-mb, you insult my intelligence when you think that dialogue wasn't attempted and years inside torture i didn't try to get help or get out. Your advice is distasteful when I have flashbacks often asking others internally for help. Next response you'll have is some sorry bullsh-t saying that i should have left the toxic environment like I had a choice. The only person that is assuming is you, and you mock me for sharing my truth yet don't understand the smear campaigns and attacks I faced by people laterally online when trying to share it. I have IRL friends and family that saw the attacks orchestrated by Ford that you'll probably start saying didn't happen. It's not cool or funny. This is my we-pon of the weak, sharing my truth. You don't know what it is like and you even further laugh about it and ask how much I spend time grieving to loss of neurodevelopment beecause you can't relate to this. I was an athlete in this domain and treated it like a field. I invested so much into my brain that you'll never understand what I lost because of people. Instead of letting me say my peace and keep it, you often come back. Based on the name of your comment, I can clearly infer your the same a--hole that messes with me online and you're not just a random person on here commenting. I ask you kindly to not respond to this to prevent back and forth and just leave me be. I'm serious. Leave me alone. I would sincerely appreciate it. You know exactly what happened to me yet you poke and prod while laughing trying to sound woke or sincere. You're just a fu--ing a--hole. Go torment someone else. You say the same broke advice every time I comment and you don't like it. It’s not about communication gaps or feelings left unsettled. It’s about power. Those with it make sure problems never resolve, because keeping people intimidated, second-guessing, and silent keeps the grift here going. That's why they'll never take accountability. That's why I get the cold shoulder when I rely on government agencies for help. Every “resolution process” is a maze designed to drain you, isolate you, and sp-t you out with nothing fixed. The damage is the point, not the byproduct. All I have is my peace and sharing my truth. So why do you disrupt even that and not grant me that? You just poke fun and laugh. Just don't respond and grant me my peace a--hole. It reframes structural abuse as a misunderstanding between individuals. At Ford, it wasn’t “assumptions” that created harm. It was deliberate sabotage, retaliation, defamation, and stonewalling when needing help while my work was being stolen. Pretending it’s about interpersonal misreads is gaslighting. I submitted 60 pages with voice calls, emails, logs, policies, legal law, and specific dates with names and everything. Stop it. It was a cover-up. "I’ve always been a decent and safe colleague" you present yourself as virtuous, which shuts down critique of the larger power structures. What they’re actually doing is shifting responsibility downward. This isn't the first time on this site you came and implied the problem is individuals not speaking up, or colleagues assuming too much, instead of systems engineered to punish truth-telling and reward silence while exploiting invisible minorities like me that don't have a voice. Instead you try and make fun of me for being an invisible minority. I know because your comments were on here like before and you find my pain funny by acting d-mb this way to get a rise out of me. You're a psychopath for this. I hope one day you look back and think about how fu---d up it was for messing with me after. You say processes “rarely give people what they actually need” like it’s a flaw. In reality, the ambiguity is intentional. Processes are designed to diffuse accountability, bury conflict, and isolate the individual raising issues. Why don't you just mind your own business a--hole.
Too often in organizations, people assume they know what others are thinking instead of asking directly. Those assumptions are dangerous, they create distance, not resolution. Many of us feel things left unsettled, yet instead of open dialogue, what we get are cold shoulders, quiet intimidation, or silence that pretends nothing is wrong. That isn’t productive, nor is it a path to resolution.
Processes meant to address issues rarely give people what they actually need; more often, they create more damage and leave things unresolved. A little honesty at the start could have likely changed the entire trajectory.
I’ve always believed in being a decent and certainly safe colleague, and no one deserves to be cast in a negative light because of unchecked assumptions.
@pr "non conformity = career su----e"
I'm not even talking about RTO. But you are a meat-head my friend. Only other career choice for you would be Arby's because they have the meats. If the world ran like the movie Idiocracy and resistance was futile meaning self-preservation is emasculating and illogical, then we'd be in trouble. The reason it's career su----e for not conforming, lets say you are being abused and someone tells you stay quiet, and you don't... then it becomes career su----e. Why? Because this company is fu--ing crazy. They don't let you go, you don't just leave, no... if you are a threat because you simply are yourself and leaving means there is a better life out there for you... they want to make sure you don't get that using their power and authority to discredit and humiliate you any way they see fit. Planned violence towards you basically. They don't want your words outside to hold value even if it is the truth because it makes them look bad for the truth. So they try anything and everything to make sure you don't leave unscathed. Fu--ing psycho. This company legit commits human rights violations then goes and posts reports for stakeholders on how they treat humans humanely... they don't. This sh-t should be illegal. Conform to exploitation and stupidity or we'll derail your career and life outside of this company is craziness. Wtf was this sh-t, honestly. If everyone accepts it instead of stepping back and realizing that this is absurd, we're all headed in the wrong direction in society. Change direction is my point. I don't need to wonder if you're this stupid irl.
"Big companies are not very good at revolutionary innovation. They’re okay when it comes to incremental things here and there, but they have a real problem with taking the next leap forward. Somebody needs to lead the way. A smaller company needs to lead the way. We have to appreciate what is really the constraint. Is the constraint a quantity of resources? It’s not the quantity of resources. Is there a small, very talented, focused, dedicated team that's willing to take the risks and make something happen? That’s the scarce commodity, not money. The world is awash in money." - Elon Musk
"You were caught between two thoughts and a third emerged, correct?'
Yes, you probably picked up on that here:
"which is not a logical error as it's an unfounded presupposed based off only one side of the continuum.'
I didn't start with genuine optimism at Ford, even my negotiation process treated me like sh-t. I never put it on my LinkedIn, not even after a year and a half. I already proved myself. I don't care if they succeed or not. They stole something from me and stripped my dignity. I'm simply trying to hold them accountable. They can go burn and get washed out by smaller new companies for all I care. I want to move on from this. They are holding me back through power asymmetry. They stole multiple things from me.
@py I’m not mocking you here — most people start with genuine optimism about Ford. Then the disillusionment sets in, when the image doesn’t match the reality and politics outweigh purpose. Over time that gap breeds frustration, and eventually the energy to stay engaged drains away. What comes out on the surface — sarcasm, cynicism, or sharp critique — isn’t hostility, it’s the residue of hope that gave way to exhaustion.
@pq You were caught between two thoughts and a third emerged, correct?
@pq non conformity = career su----e, no charge, you're welcome; I wonder if this person talks like this irl
@mk At Ford, we're constantly dealing with information overload, these shortcuts are shaped by experience, emotions, social influences, and even evolutionary survival mechanisms. One that has been at ford could perceive those that are no longer "there" as a literal meaning to infer that they are unqualified, further exacerbating this psychological tendency, which is not a logical error as it's an unfounded presupposed based off only one side of the continuum. It's an automatic bias from the observer as an involuntary heuristic (mental shortcut) the mind takes, which could be distorted or irrational judgements. If you pay attention, we don't always have the luxury to be paid living in reality, take being at Ford and what you implied in your comment for example. These reveal internal contradictions and are amplified because the audience may resist confronting the gap because biases prevent acknowledgement of this breakdown.
@OP+1k5yhbf85
What happens if you don't conform to RTO?
Then we see you at McDonalds Drive-thru taking our order.
Be bold and call your manager's bluff.
@g1 at least i don't double dribble!
@f5 & the following posts. How about u either start ur own thread and/or answer OP? Over your dribble.
@f5 i forgot to include my thoughts on the customer journey and how in marketing there are impressions, and then there are conversions from those impressions. i wanted to mention how impression management could be making sure every single thing is spotless, as in no red flags, to ensure that people looking for the bad (and not specifically the good) from a cynical lens can be convinced. humans are imperfect and a perfectly looking human may not be perfect either. i was going to say why this makes two things difficult, 1 accountability- especially when it impacts to multiple degrees of entities... and 2 why from the lens of a person bringing another in may miss signs, hence cognitive bias... which leads to delayed discovery and then ripple from magnitude of different things unfolding. sorry i didn't edit this specific comment (not the one im tagging but this comment specifically here). so enjoy raw stream of consciousness, wish i included this below but oh well.. will return on that angle another time
@ff no / yeah
playing off indecisiveness to describe perfectionism... like having the desire for the perfect or right answer, which can/is impossible to find. the "ni" part plays on introverted intuition, which is related to the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. thanks for asking
@fa what does niyuhh mean?
@f9 this is** oops
"It’s less that Detroit runs Washington or Washington runs Detroit, and more that both depend on each other to keep the performance believable at home and abroad. Right?"
also, beautiful.. yes. dramaturgy, global stage - macro level. It's the american dream. cooperation over t-t for tat, reciprocal altruism on a grand scale. Sometimes gov takes the hit, other times the automaker does. again, thanks for sharing.
@f8 is this saying that symbiotic relationship for mutual dependence, especially overtime where it becomes indistinguishable through empirical impact and influence. This makes levels Goffman's work in micro and takes it up to macro-level, which some researchers in certain camps disagree with doing, but building onto it in this way worked well to explain my thoughts. Sometimes one is dominant and the other is vulneraxble. He didn't use dominant actors like i did specifically, but there would be lead roles - front men - and supporting roles. It works for this example because Goffman believed that power is situational, not structural. Also, wow. Thanks for the read and engaging with it.
@f5 I read that three times, organized it and reread it….
What you’re really saying is that the Big Three and the U.S. government are so tightly bound that they function like co-actors on the same stage. Automakers project “industrial strength” as part of America’s identity, and when the mask slips like in 2009 the government steps in to prop it back up. States compete for plants, subsidies flow, and the companies gain legitimacy not just from sales but from being symbols of national power. It’s less that Detroit runs Washington or Washington runs Detroit, and more that both depend on each other to keep the performance believable at home and abroad. Right?
@bf In Goffman's impression management, the theory focuses on the interactive deliberate and/or routine effort initiated by an actor where the goal is to influence how others see them. The observers can accept, challenge, or reinterpret the performance, which gives them power... you can call the ongoing effort by the actor akin to continuous improvement for my DevOps enthusiasts, and adaptive "role performance" for my academics. Performers may often adapt dynamically based on audience reactions... or even double down, despite push-back. The actors that are on stage may shift roles dynamically to co-construct performances within groups [teams / performance teams], or even individuals... but still WITHIN the context of audience awareness. The actor(s) are presumed to be aware of audience feedback when on stage, but also may anticipate expectations in other regions as there is both an immediate feedback loop [co-present audience] and delayed abstract feedback like reputations, rumors, analytics... which is what makes it dynamic... It can be direct or inferred and the audience isn't always paying attention 24/7, which may be a margin of error for their lens that has power. In today's day and age, context collapse [danah boyd] is another angle where the actor(s) have to acknowledge the problem of managing impressions across converging audiences, sometimes across geopolitical boundaries. The core idea is that people are like actors on a stage, constantly managing how others see them through performances, "clothing, speech, behavior, environment (like dev/sandbox/stage/pre-release/prod and feature flags)" [sign vehicles]. It's about how a person (or group) presents themselves to shape perceptions. Think about everything we do as "regions", even when an actor goes "back-stage"... they are still on the performing in 2025 [mediated backstage, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica]... true back-stage is where actor(s) take off their mask and are free of audience scrutiny. Even when actors believe they're backstage, the meta-awareness of them being back-stage in itself is often presumed by audience, which could induce anticipation. Their absence is "seen" and sends a message through meta-communication. Today, actors may think they're "truly" back-stage, yet may be later discovered or surveilled. A later discovery could mean individuals may be held accountable for past behaviors they no longer identify, worried that context will collapse without the full picture, or just embarrassed about assuming it was a private setting. This also means that when the actors themselves are backstage, they aren't aware of an audience. The boundary between back-stage and front-stage in this day and age is often blurred. Impression management can hurt if back-stage behavior is accidentally exposed, like pushing to production with errors. There could also be defensive mechanisms or protective practices to recover from that, such as a rollback through version control where malformed data is removed and integrity of the system restored before the mishap. Even better, if the corrupted data in production gets migrated so the new data during that mishap is still recovered, instead of wasted effort. This in itself could set a better impression since it could show others how proactive and prepared the actor(s) were. Think of it like a mask slipping on stage, and then a mask being put back in place... a form of healthy image repair theory. The halo effect is a cognitive bias (systematic error in thinking) where our overall impression of someone (usually based on one positive trait) influences how we perceive their other traits. If someone is from a good school, you might assume they're also intelligent, kind, or competent... even without evidence. It's an automatic bias from the observer as an involuntary heuristic (mental shortcut) the mind takes, which could be distorted or irrational judgements. We're constantly dealing with information overload, these shortcuts are shaped by experience, emotions, social influences, and even evolutionary survival mechanisms. Some cognitive biases affect another, such as anchoring bias where one might rely heavily on the first piece of information like hiring talent that came from a "good school" yet under-performing or not as talented as expected, yet thinking you still have the better end of the deal... perhaps due to dunning-kruger effect by the person who came from the "good school" as confirmation bias. Simultaneously, they might think they are better than the other candidates because they could perceive those that didn't come from an "impressive school" are unqualified... further exacerbating this psychological tendency, which is not a logical error as it's presupposed. Impression management, on the other hand, is an intentional behavior from the person being perceived. It's nuanced. Impression management aims to shape perception, it's not a bias. One might try to exploit or activate cognitive biases like the halo effect in the observer by an impression management meta-strategy like making the effort to enter and graduate from a "good school" [bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital] so employers perceive them as a qualified candidate through generalization from that one prominent [salient] trait. These cognitive biases interplay with impression management. This example is a meta-strategy since it's not a single tactic, but an overarching framework that is designed to be flexible for different use-cases like PWA/SPA/SSR/SSG/ISR/CSR. Any decision made is sending a message through this effort. Not talking is talking. Think about meta-communication which is what you say, how you say it, when you say it, or don't... all of it sends a signal. It can be intentional and part of a meta-strategy, or perceived as intentional (interpretation). This interpretive ambiguity creates a double bind [Bateson / communication theory] everyone navigates, most of the time unconsciously. No response is a response loaded with projection. Not going to a "prestigious school" sends a message too. These signals ripple through time. The past affects the present. Getting into prestigious schools often requires high marks within our formal public education system before that. At the micro level, impression management; at the macro level, corporations like the big three in Michigan are collective actors managing impressions and shaping hegemony. Gamsci's hegemony is when dominant groups maintain power not only through force but through cultural institutional integration. Now think collective impression management on the global "stage". Automakers are hegemonic "actors", they don't just lobby, they shape Michigan's (and America's) political and cultural identity, this includes what is prioritized as important in our traditional school's education system and partnerships for jobs out of university with top colleges ("the" "talent" pipeline). Since policies tilt around their needs, you can say that economies are locked into unbalanced relationships, this is dependency theory. Think about U.S., Ford can demand $ or they can just move a factory to another state where they will pay their price. This makes it so states like Tennessee, Michigan, or Kentucky compete with each-other... essentially trying to sc--w each-other and tax-payers over, meso impact. The automakers extract concessions because local governments fear losing them. Now, here is where I introduce something a bit different from impression management... mutual dependence, and a symbiotic relationship. The three major players are so big and bring so many jobs that they become very enmeshed with our government and as discussed, indistinguishable. Just by empirically calculating their social capital in comparison to strong political influences within the government in itself. I would say more local power to the areas (states) they command and "conquer", with satellite operations in foreign countries included, which in total "tallies" to social capital influence in our federal government. The big three also could provide good "cover" internationally for not only moving money, but also building influence with foreign relationships abroad, whether it be allies or adversaries... primarily with players in partnering companies as a form of covert soft power. Beyond that, Wallerstein’s world-systems theory talks about how core nations maintain power by controlling production networks in semi-peripheral/peripheral nations. The influence built by lateral movement through foreign-partnering companies overseas allows for building influence the same way influence is built with each state domestically here. Building plants and bringing jobs becomes a bidding war amongst states and that leverage is essential, that is power in a way.. hence subsidies and incentives. In dramaturgy, which heavily inspired Goffman, we think of the government as the dominant actor on the stage, but in complex relationships (in this case, the three automakers), the dominant actor shifts, especially in a crisis. In a crisis, it would go from dominant industrial actors to vulnerable performers. Of course, in macro and micro alike, not all actors can perform equally; some are constrained due to agency-structure tension contextually like class/gender/company-size etc. If we are performing on the "global stage" and the American automotive car company's mask slips, the United States props their mask back up to maintain optics. Think about the 2009 auto bailout, it wasn't just economic. It was also about reputation ("https://www.chevyhardcore.com/news/editorial-did-ford-take-bailout-money-too-yes-they-did/"). Companies like the big three aren't just selling cars, they're performing "America's industrial strength" on the global stage, especially validating them when vulnerable, placing U.S. as the actor on the "global stage". By acting, the U.S. was not just bailing them out, it was performing loyalty to the industry, to the labor market, and to national identity through their government validation and action. Not bailing out the automakers and staying backstage isn't just a passive decision, that ripple travels as an active signal. The government not bailing out isn't seen as neutral, it could be seen as abandonment and the loss of jobs, a double bind. Neoinstitutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell) argues that organizations behave not just out of efficiency, but to gain legitimacy by mimicking accepted norms. As an individual, you're performing a version of yourself that institutions reward, and with the indistinguishable relationship of government, this version is to appear "legitimate" within the rules of the game, where your personal brand is also part of the national stage. That means being an agent that doesn't just impact the automaker, but the local government (peripheries), government, and country as a whole, rippling globally. Dramaturgy is threatre, not reality. If you pay attention, we don't always have the luxury to be paid living in reality. Goffman's frame is more bout perception than ontology. With this I introduce performance slip vs. performative slip. Performance slip is the unintentional breach of the mask and the terms that come with it, which then demands either repair or an adjustment with there always being the possibility of lingering reputational risk or damage, calling others to reconsider the authenticity or consistency of their performance. Performative slip is the theoretical lens through which we view the intersection of identity, role-playing and power. In this circumstance, the slip isn't about a failure or performance, but an unintended revelation of the complexity or frailty in an actor's constructed identity, a dilemma about the disruption of the narrative than a failure within complex social systems that could call underlying power into question. These reveal internal contradictions and are amplified because the audience may resist confronting the gap because biases prevent acknowledgement of this breakdown. The difference between the two depends on whether the rupture is contained (performance) or system-challenging (performative slip). It's about breaking through the bias by overriding the heuristic and shifting from bias-driven perception to structural/logical analysis, which causes the rupture to deepen from "a bad apple" to "a broken barrel" that may roll into other levels/stages instead of just falling from the tree. Discrepant roles aren't originally rewarded, but can become a nucleus that out-competes the larger t-t-for-tat play on the "global stage" through prior structural exclusion, making them structurally valued time after performative slip. Goffman's dramaturgy is micro-sociology, whereas what I'm introducing are ripple effects through independent early dominoes that trickle and affect other aspects, this could be seen as a polycrisis... while also making my observation that even though one works at an automaker, they can have impact that is similar to an agent of our government, depending on the individual "tallies" inside and out.
Your primary mistake here is conflating responsibility with bootlicking.
We are responsible for a work product.
We are not responsible for propping up real estate values, contributing to the local-to-the-office economy and the resulting tax benefits, being fodder for "leaders" need for control, or anything else.
@OP, What do you think happens if you don’t comply and are given a final warning?
@cg Looking forward to it.
@c8 what does this mean?
I’ve heard from very high up that they’ll use it to fire you.
@c8 I understand and hear you. You're definitely right about opportunities. We should always be grateful to have blessings in life. I'll try to constructively share as much as possible tomorrow.
@bf I wrote something up, but it is in stream of consciousness form rn. Thanks for asking, allowed me to dive into some new topics like gramsci’s hegemony. Lots of the time, we think our thoughts are new and original, then you find out you're not first, haha. I will translate it tomorrow and reply. Got some interesting ideas. Someone said polycrisis in another thread. I think I got a polytheory going here. All in fun, not serious paranoia or something btw... more sociological/political using stuff i found out my ideas formally relate to like dependency theory / world-systems theory / bourdieu’s symbolic capital... good exposure.
Someone tells you it is time to grow up and act like a responsible adult and then gives you the opportunity to go try doing something else while you ponder whether your little childish stance was worth losing your job over
@be I suspect the same. All signs point to heavy central control.
@be can you elaborate?
@bc We are working for the government (my fun conspiracy theory)
@b9 Someone once explained to me that it's like we all work for the same company, we share suppliers, processes, and maybe even information. We're interdependent in many ways. There's probably someone at Stellantis and GM doing almost the exact same job you are.
@b8 "if you are in MI, those guys talk to each other, difficulties to find a new job" yup
This is facts.
i knew they talk to each other because the first time I went out to Starbucks and sat down with my laptop i was approached by both GM and Stellantis that same session, back to back. One left, another came.. They were very kind and respectful and if they're seeing this... i'm sorry for sharing this. Not trying to make you guys look bad, it's not a bad thing... in this example... if you think about it. Unfortunately, I signaled clear that I'm in a phase of "self-exploration"... they took the hint and respected that, but otherwise... I don't think in this scenario it was bad. In this scenario it was me, being a gremlin. Sorry for sharing this to you people i don't mean malice by it.. if anything its a positive light...
other cases yes it could be bad.
the reality is the 3 big players in michigan don't necessary hate each other in the way you'd expect. If anything, it's like different schools playing against each other.
Non-compliance with the company policy, fire for cause:
- No severance
- No unemployment benefits
- if you are in MI, those guys talk to each other, difficulties to find a new job
I VOLUNTEER
Nothing will happen, those who made these rules are already been fired
Deadwood to be trimmed.
Friends & Family - Nothing....
Leadership Pet - Nothing....
Everyone else, will be used to fire you.
The axe will drop