Thread regarding U.S. Bank layoffs

FAQ say we are responsible for 60 percent since January

How is this legal? So 11 days was good, but now they say it’s no good because new rule is 14 to 15 days, depending on the month. Applies retroactively since January since expectations was to be in office…but for 15 days????


by
| 21 views | | 8 replies (last April 16) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1kp9pa939

8 replies (most recent on top)

@d7 Would you be willing to upload those to an anonymous share? I wasn't as wise as you to save that documentation (although I did read it and I also am aware it existed) but now I have a feeling I'm going to need to rub their noses in it since my numbers are all off.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @d8+1kp9pa939

I was told in a meeting about it that it was supposed to be 3 days a week, period, and that 11 was never the number. Also that we were to be making up days to ensure we hit that 3 days a week. So if we were on vacation Monday/Tues we were supposed to go in wed-fri and if we couldn't we should have been factoring in an extra day because the expectation has always been 3+ days per week.

I have multiple forms of documentation to show that is not, nor has that ever been the direction. I cannot believe that we pay these id--ts multiple million dollars a year to be this level of unethical. The original FAQ specifically stated days to not need to be made up and that the policy allows for temporary adjustments to how many days you're in without needing formal approvals. I have proof because I saved as many historical copies as I could, because they can't be trusted and they gaslight the sh-t out of employees.

They want us in closer to 5 days a week and are trying to word the policy to usher it in that direction while maintaining some sort of guise that this isn't what they're doing. The "flexibility" that they tout is nothing more than a ruse.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @d7+1kp9pa939

Short answer: it's not.
Long answer: doubt anyone will have the exact right circumstances or be worth the headache enough to challenge it. And they know that. But there's no way legal signed off on it.

It's mostly just goes on the mountain of evidence that we have blatantly unethical actors at the highest levels of our company.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cy+1kp9pa939

@aa But even at that, 3 days a week in March would be 12 days. There were 22 working days in the month. 60% of 22 is 13.2, meaning even if you followed the rules you were short 2 days as you would have been expected to be there 14.

That’s not laziness. That’s malice.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aw+1kp9pa939

@aa or they aren't smart enough on HR Ops team to figure it out so they make it up as they go along, say do as I say, not as I do and call it governance. #hrteamsucksa$$

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @an+1kp9pa939

They changed how we’re being measured and made it retroactive. It’s unethical but they don’t care about ethics hence canning the chief ethics officer. Shame shame shame.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ab+1kp9pa939

In fairness, the rule was 3+ a week, but the reporting only tracked to 11 a month due to what I can only assume is laziness of leadership in not wanting to look at weekly reports, so they got a sloppy one that was close enough.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aa+1kp9pa939

Post a reply

: