I'm technically assigned to an office but never go in. About half of my team is assigned to an office and the other half are officially remote, but we all work from home every day. I'm thinking of asking my manager to switch me to a telecommuter in order to protect me from a potential upcoming RTO mandate, but I'm wondering if becoming a telecommuter would actually increase the chances that I get laid off.
16 replies (most recent on top)
@2tc Yes it could have been targeted. They were trying to make Provider Relations quit and causing a toxic work environment. They made them all call center employees in an effort to make them quit and then on top of that still had to do their regular work, they were blocked from applying out to other depts. My friend was sick each Sunday in dread of the next day. All this as they were trying to get people to quit to avoid paying out severance packets. Lay off came as a relief and now those people laid off in April are in better places.
@2mx It sounds like they were targeting that particular position though. I’m talking about a scenario where half of a team is remote and half is in office.
Among the same position, I’m wondering if one employee type is safer than the other
@2mx Very true might be safer to stay assigned to an office.
Do you think any of the management on this side comprehends what will happen? Why does it seem like we are winging it lately?
Provider relations took a HUGE hit in April and we're all telecommuters.
@q7 I've been working at the company for around 9 years. My impression is that layoff decisions are largely economic driven, focused on two strategies. First, cull the heard at the team level, with the assumption less valuable projects will be dropped, or existing employees will take on more. Second, layoff higher GL (ie associate directors and directors) to reduce higher value labor. I assume to be replaced with someone getting a promotion, but at a lower pay rate.
@13a Optum?
I got the layoff notice in December. I would not wish it on anyone as unemployment is at a 4 year high. At the same time it was a relief, like leaving any abusive relationship.
UHC never goes by seniority as one would think. It actually seems like they narrow in on the employees that have been there the longest and let them go. Terribly unfair company.
@da I've never seen last one hired be the first one let go at UHG and I've seen many teammates being RIFed on multiple teams. It has usually been the top performers or highest earners.
@da I am an example of a UHC employee that was let go because the spreadsheet needed a bigger number to hit their RIF dollar allocation. 20+ years with awards lining all the shelves in my office. I was the first to go. So, no that’s not the UHC rule of thumb
@d7 Interesting. I know the rule of thumb is the last one hired is the first one fired, but I’d think this company would target higher earning individuals to save more money. Not executives of course, but I feel like they’d cut a senior employee on a team who makes $120k rather than a junior employee on the same team who makes $80k
@cr if you make less money than them, yes. Teams who cut on campus colleagues of mine kept remote peers on their respective teams.
@cp Of course both types are prone to layoffs, but within a certain team, could one employee type be safer than the other? Like if I’m on a team of 20 people with 10 being remote and 10 being in office, and the company decides to lay off 5 of us, you don’t think they’d target the telecommuters first?
Several people who were in 4-5 days a week at HQ were let go before Thanksgiving. No, it does not matter. Unless you want wear and tear on your vehicle, why bother?
Nope - you are a number on the balance sheet.