Since that seems to be the goal. I wonder if it worked as intended, or if people, given the job market, are just trying hard to accommodate. I'm in the latter group. RTO is needlessly time-consuming, expensive, and it’s hard to see any reasonable explanation beyond pressuring people to quit. Coming into the office has made me less efficient, and nobody on my team is even nearby anyway. I’ve decided to go along with it for now while I look for another job. In this game of chicken, I'll let them be forced to lay me off. After so many years, I'm not leaving without a severance.
16 replies (most recent on top)
@dd No one is "manufacturing" reasons. Displaced employees with IMs still get a bonus and severance.
The griping is coming from employees whose managers weren't holding them accountable. There are (or were) a lot of employees that were ridiculously hard to work with, argumentative, in one case I know of even made a woman cry on a call-yet still got meets because it was easier than going through all the HR baloney. Both US and India managers tend to be non-confrontational about poor performance, which unfortunately sends the wrong message that's its all okey dokey.
If you find yourself with a "surprise" IM, its probably because your manager didn't have the guts to confront you earlier.
Does anyone else think top top leadership (the ones forcing rto) truly believe it is better for efficiency? I don’t think it’s better for the vast majority of employees- but I think the C suite truly does believe it’s better. That would also explain why they continue to push RTO despite already weeding out a lot of the non compilers
The truth is that there are fewer and fewer fully remote jobs in the market, and the job market isn’t good overall whether it be for in-office, hybrid or fully remote.
So how many have left because of having to be in office 3x8? Not many.
If you’re still *itchen about RTO, please find a job and quit. People are being displaced and you’re crying about RTO.
@d9 its clear though that they are trying to find (/manufacture) more reasons to fire for cause in order to cut down on the number of severance packages they have to pay. Assertinf simply "the severance policy hasn't changed" is technically true but kind of leaving some key information out.
@ax " They are indeed cutting back on severance" ... simply not the case. The employee handbook states what severance is due (60 days + 2 wks/year).
Displacements get severance; in return, they sign an agreement not to sue the company.
When employees are discplaced, the headcount vanishes from the budget and no one gets backfilled. If you get fired for cause (IM/NI/PIP)... that's entirely different. The headcount in the budget still exists, and they can re-post and re-fill the position.
I was hoping for severance/layoff that never came. Left 6 months ago after 25 years. Office relocated while WFH, from Phoenix to Chandler. RTO brutal commute. No regrets…Liberating!!!
Not enough. It would save on layoffs
@ag unfortunately that may not be an option. They are indeed cutting back on severance and if they have a reason it wouldn’t take much to move from a Meets to a IM and not severance. it su-ks but that is the plan for 2026. Displacements no severance. There will be some but not a guarantee. It wil come down to for those that can leave for another job do and those that can retire will. The place is just not worth it.
Can't speak for the OP, but for me it has nothing to do with the SCF and everything to do with firing all my friends and A holes in NYC not getting what they want.
@op “After so many years, I'm not leaving without a severance.”. Way to exemplify the Sunk Cost Fallacy.
Folks like you make it easy to “exceed” at Wells by doing the standard job requirements.
The trick with an RTO mandate is that once it's enforced and the non-compliers are gone (think 2022-2023) then there is absolutely no $ savings from that point forward. People are just dealing with it, as stupid as it is, so there is no possible upside to the business and obviously not the individual. Same goes for the in office hours rule. Ok, you nail a few people and fire them for cause. That's the end of your "savings", and since most roles will be filled, you aren't getting much.
This executive team is too stupid to realize any of this, of course. They'll continue to double down on an investment with certain negative returns.
@a9 He's doing something right, they gave him a huge raise. Imagine if us worker bees got those kinds of raises for failing to accomplish a major strategic enterprise goal.
I think most people who were going to leave because of RTO saw the writing on the wall in 2023-24 and are long gone already. At this point Charlie is flaying a dead horse, especially given the conditions of the job market.
I'm sure some, but the problem is the market is logjammed. So not as many as they were hoping. That probably explains their move to try and fire more for cause. Job market bad + severance carrot = low turnover.
According to all the rumors here, not nearly as many as this executive team expected.