I know of several high performers with zero HR issues who were recently given written warnings for “failure to comply with hybrid policy” even though their management advised they were following the guidelines as far as they were concerned. No verbal warnings per the policy either. Are they doing this to set people up for RIFs?
14 replies (most recent on top)
@2xvh+1tFqYKQA - same thing happened to me. 13 years with the company. always earned meets and exceeds on annual performance reviews, then BO-M! Went through 3 re-orgs in less than 2 years, which meant 3 different managers and the last manager gave me a partially meets. First time in 13 years. I was devastated. Spoke with my manager, my manager's manager, and even went to associate relations, but there was nothing they could do. Seems like I was victim of force ranking where a certain % of a team is bucketed into partially, meets, and exceeds. This has impacted me being able to transfer within the company, because internal transfers require 3 or higher on the most recent review. Needless to say, but my resume is ready and I have been applying/interviewing externally.
This is so they can fire you right before the RIF so they do not have to pay out severance or help find you another position. It happened to me last year.
I was given 2 unjustified “partially meets expectations” which equals justification for rif.
The ground on this keeps shifting and I would say go to the office 4 times in each month to be safe.
The badge reports are in Workday and people leaders can see the date you went in for the current month as well as total visits (and details) for previous months. If you only go twice in a month, you will be marked as "red" on the bar chart report. Apparently HR is running their own reports to see who is in noncompliance.
This is increasingly moving out of your manager's hands which is why it is best to be in full compliance.
They're two different things, dovetailing nicely for senior leadership.
The RIF is unrelated to the hybrid enforcement, but it does definitely serve the purpose of forcing additional attrition. I'm sure anyone non-compliant could and probably will find themselves on the RIF list, but compliance doesn't protect you from RIF, nor does surviving the RIF but ultimately being non-compliant protect you from getting your walking papers at a later date.
Basically, they're getting us coming and going.
Just curious is anyone else feeling the pressure from leadership like their looking for a reason to write you to avoid any RIF pay.
Riffy,
If I am one day a week in office person, and a new month starts in the middle of the week, do I need to get my 4 badge days in before the new month starts?
How are badge swipes counted?
I discovered yesterday that my mgr got a written warning for non compliance when they were originally told the policy was effective in June for our team. HR dinged them for January-April non compliance. We are all wondering if we’re going to be next.
In a meeting a few weeks ago, I heard that someone was termed for failure to adhere to the hybrid policy.... the first that i'd heard of.
A new aspect I became aware of was that some leaders want an average of 4 badge swipes per month, and if you’re on vacation one week you need to double up to meet the monthly quota. It’s not clear if punitive action will result for not making this leader specific quota or not. This punitive tracking is ridiculous. I wonder if United would take Gail back? She continues to drive our culture down the drain in an effort to make us like United.
Has nothing to do with RIFs. HR really has ramped up the pressure on people leaders regarding this. In early June, they said that they want to see the compliance go up and now they are taking more punitive measures.
It is completely ridiculous that I have to spend time looking at badge swipe reports and talking to high performers about this. It is very obvious this is just another tool to create attrition.
Also, do not be surprised if the in-office requirement jumps from 1 day per week to 3 for everyone.
I think there was a lot of "grey area" before April/May - my manager advised before that point that we could remain virtual as we had been for years then all of a sudden that changed and we needed to go to office 3-4 times per month. Agreed though, it is odd and trust is a major issue at this place now.
As a high-performing leader who received the first written warning (CA) of her career I can tell you (at least for my org) the messaging was that the CA was mandatory. I was complaint at the time the CA was issued, but because I had fallen out of compliance during the six-month “lookback” period, the narrative was they had no choice and I was still issued the CA. I’ve since debunked the mandatory aspect through speaking with other leadership under the same org.
Also worth noting is the “Undetermined” aspect…most CAs are for 30/60/90 days, but when I received mine in writing the time frame was “Undetermined”, meaning it’s not just a standard CA but a Compliance violation. I believe the undetermined aspect was absolutely designed to create a situation in which they can term people at a moments notice should they fall out of compliance again. Term = no severance and no unemployment (unless you fight it). Smells like more “workforce optimization” to me!
There’s really no grey area with the hybrid policy. It’s spelled out on pulse. “Failure to comply” must mean associates were not going into office the minimum days per week. Odd either way