Perhaps this is old news, but heard for the first time today that even established telecommuters within 35 miles of an office are going to be required in office 5 days.
41 replies (most recent on top)
@3rf and this is what is wrong with society
Guys, under federal law and most state laws, your home office is an extension of Truist when you’re working. All you need to do is trip/injure yourself when working at home, and go out on disability/your medical needs have now changed your ability to commute. Fight fire with fire.
You’re going to need a good, large sized legal firm on retainer. Make sure it’s a firm that specializes in representing employees in employment law cases, specifically discrimination and disability cases)
@34t are you within 35 miles of an office?
@df Yeah…what’s right is right, and what’s right is to let people stay remote if you HIRED them to work remotely. I’d like to know where the CARE is in this bait-and-switch of hiring people to work remotely and then forcing them to be in-office 5 days a week
@eh Remote employee here (hired to be remote), losing my remote status!
@eh I want to know where the new AI guy brought in from Microsoft is working.
Is there a hub in Texas?
@1hx thanks I'm going to watch this. If calling HR was annoymous I would report this without batting an eye. Hopefully someone with more backbone will do it. 🙏🙏🙏
@18e It is an internal video, “The Wire” episode 20.
@183 Wait, she said WHAT? I don't know who this person is, but wow! I hope someone reports her.
If you can’t say anything nice then… come over here and sit next to me and tell me more.
@e1 - The EEOC always gives out a ‘Right to Sue’ letter once they wrap up their investigation. If someone has a solid case, their lawyer will file a EEOC discrimination charge, get the letter, file the suit in federal court, and usually end up with a settlement. Truist definitely doesn’t want bad press, so they’ll probably settle to keep things quiet—it’s cheaper and way less hassle than going to trial.
@183 - Is there any video evidence or official documentation of Jennifer Hewit making this statement? If accurate, it appears to constitute a clear violation of the ADA and federal anti-retaliation protections. An executive expressing such remarks could provide substantial legal grounds for affected employees with accommodations.
If possible, please forward this information to the EEOC: https://www.eeoc.gov/how-file-charge-employment-discrimination
@eh Look back at Hewet's "The Wire" episodes.
About a month back she threatened to change positions / fire folks who had an approved accommodation because she KNOWS everyone is a big faker.
The circular logic is amazing. After telling everyone during Covid that WFH was the new standard, now they are asking why so many accommodation requests came in when they announced RTO.
Facepalm moment: Why would people put in an accommodation request if they were told that WFH was okay? Of course they will do the paperwork when management makes it necessary. Why do it before it's needed?
@t8 pi-s all over the floors and full trash cans.
@OP what is this 35 miles business? What does it mean for outside of 35 miles?
What are the bathroom conditions like in Beechleaf
Because Bill said so, that’s why.
@f9 What I find funny is that you wasted all that time to talk about how everyone here is filled with anonymous whiners and complainers while you wrote the longest post complaining about those that are complaining. Way to show how much better you are than the rest of us. It should be surprising to no one that, on balance, a workforce is frustrated by a nonsensical policy that is clearly aimed at driving attrition to help get the company closer to a committed 15% ROTCE target by 2027. But thank you for your rah rah, conform or quit stance. While being anonymous. While complaining about others that are also anonymous. GREAT JOB!
No One Cares. Stop talking RTO!!!!!!!
@h3 It’s hilarious watching the select few who keep rambling about “doctor’s notes” for an issue that doesn’t even exist. But let me ask you this, are you really saying that people who were hired as remote, based on an explicit agreement, shouldn’t feel upset or anxious when that agreement is suddenly tossed out? Not talking about pandemic hires, not talking about hybrid people…..I’m talking about those who were specifically brought on as remote and even got HR and management approval to relocate because they were remote.
So honestly, if you were hired hybrid or in-office and you’re suddenly outraged, it sounds less like a “principle” issue and more like good old-fashioned envy. You’re mad because someone else negotiated something you couldn’t. You may think this is funny, but what’s actually funny is that your negotiation skills clearly didn’t cut it. That’s not a remote-work problem—that’s a you problem.
@f9 Absolutely right. It's funny how the complainers never have money for gas and parking but they do for unethical doctor visits.
@fk proves the point of the caliber of people on this board complaining.
Lot of whining and complaining here (I get it, it’s an anonymous board for disgruntled folks to whine and complain)… legit ADA cases aside, the company has options and the employees have options, and the “option” employees have is to leave.
Bill and the operating council have elected to bring everyone in 5 days a week. You don’t like it???? Resign and go whine and complain somewhere else. Go to Citibank or some cr-ppy fintech that could very well be out of business in a few months. And even if you do, who’s to say that your new employer won’t go down the same route as Truist and others? When you work for anyone other than yourself, but in particular for a large corporation, you have to play by the rules even if you don’t like or agree with them.
Resign and move on with your life, or quit complaining about it.
And to the person who pointed out a potential spike in IBSD and anxiety cases, that’s unfortunate because it waters down a very important law to protect and support those with legitimate disabilities. Pretty pathetic to think that people would break the law and risk their jobs and their (presumably ethically questionable) “medical professionals” careers because they don’t have the courage or just common sense to resign and go somewhere else.
OK disgruntled folks, go ahead and light me up for using common sense and calling you out on your BS…
“But I’m more effective when I work from home, the office is just a bunch of gossipers and people socializing!!!” Great, then quit.
“But I can use the time I’d spend commuting being productive with work activities!” Probably true, but tough. Deal with it, and if you’re not happy, then quit.
“But it’s going to cost me a ton of money for gas and parking!” Maybe true, but deal with it or quit.
People whined when we first came back into the office that it was going to hit them in the wallet… I don’t recall Truist enforcing pay cuts during COVID to “recoup” what people were saving by not commuting???
As someone covered by the ADA, I would like to assume that that Truist wouldn't revolk current accommodations, but I could see them tightening up on future or new requests. I'm sure they are being bombarded right now with an influx of IBSd and anxiety cases.
The question I have is if a leader relocated during covid and was 'blessed' with a remote status, do they need to relocate back?
Personally, I would find that highly hypocritical, unethical even, if said 'blessed' leader continued to work remotely while cracking the whip on their reports.
I'm not sure what the end game is, attrition most likely, but I'll be curious to see if this is an empty threat or serious. As of today, I do not know one remote teammate who lost their remote status.
@a6 this is exactly what I’ve heard is the goal, and I heard it was to get rid of people in advance of a merger. Has anyone else heard that rumor?
Uh, some people might want to look into how the ADA titles get enforced via the EEOC and what the currently in charge government has done with regard to decimating protections for workers
@dj you tell ‘em! LOL
I have a permanent medical disability and an approved accommodation to work remotely. I don’t live in a hub area, and if I were forced to RTO, it would accomplish absolutely nothing—because none of the people I work with are in that office. Truist cannot claim “undue hardship” or “business necessity” here. The reality is simple: I’d either spend my day in Teams meetings from home, or I’d sit in an office out of state with none of my team or stakeholders... still in Teams meetings. There is no operational benefit whatsoever to forcing me into a building where none of my collaborators are located.
I want to make this completely clear: I have been documenting everything. I have built a legal case, and I absolutely do have standing. If there is any form of retaliation, degradation of my review, bonus impact, RIF targeting, or any attempt to we-ponize RTO requirements against me—then that will be the final trigger. I will escalate immediately and formally. I am fully prepared to pursue this in court with an attorney, and based on the facts, I am confident I will get a settlement or win at trial.
I am not bluffing, and I am not interested in playing corporate games. If this situation is pushed into a legal confrontation, the consequences for Truist—and for those involved (you know who you are) for breaking federal civil rights laws, past retaliation and ignoring or undermining a legally protected accommodation—will be significant. Those involved will be fired with "Terminated with Cause" on their employment background check. Let this sink in. You will be banned from future employment with any reputable company. No one will hire you. I strongly suggest you think very carefully before taking any action that violates ADA requirements or retaliates against me. I will protect my rights without hesitation.
Funny enough, this same type of situation happened where one of my relatives works. The employee walked away with a seven-figure settlement, and the executive responsible got fired on the spot—officially marked as “Terminated for Cause.” Their career was basically finished. This is how things really go down in corporate America. Truist isn’t special. I’m dead serious.
You have been warned.
what's right is right. ALL need to RTO 5 days a week.
Offer letter has zero impact if you’re within 35 miles. Anyone successful in using their offer letter please share, I was told it didn’t matter that it showed remote
The work location consistency has H1B LCA compliance importance (that the administration is investigating as part of the crackdown announced earlier this year). Some of this is not just to be annoying but to ensure Truist is positioned well with regulators (including the DOL), policies and demonstrating consistent treatment and enforcement are important to all highly regulated companies
Good. If I have to suffer the daily indignity of working in Truist's loud, odoriferous, diverse open-office hellscape, everyone should.
@cr I was employed as a telecommuter but within 35 miles. I've been told that the update is I will have to come in. Also, future hiring will be for in office, with remote only in exceptional circumstances.
I will be starting a job search.
@ce my remote status is listed on my letter, but unfortunately I don’t think it will matter. Since we’re all ‘at-will’ employees, they can basically do whatever they want barring a medical exemption. It’s terrible . It basically gives them the legal right to renegotiate a contract. The vibe I got when I confronted my manager about it was that EVERYBODY is back 5 days. I forwarded my offer letter to HR to see what they say about it, even though I’m certain I’ll get a huge word salad from them and they’ll likely say it’s a LOB decision . Su-ks bad.
Is your remote status actually listed in your offer letter? If not, welcome to the office. Your seat is right over there.
@ag well, you never me toned you were WFH due to medical accommodation. Obviously, this isn't about you then so move on
SMELLS LIKE A CORPORATE SHAKEDOWN
@a6 - My state has state laws where I would have recourse as well. Double whammy suit in federal and state court!
@a6 - Good. I can sue and get a nice settlement (6 figures or more). Medical accommodation due to disability to work remotely. Those in my management hierarchy have broken the law with federal civil rights laws and I was retaliated against. All this is documented in HR systems. Getting fired would be the ultimate poison pill for you all.
For the "Rather be RIFed" individual:
the problem is that not complying will give them cause to fire you vs. RIF with severance. Many companies are doing RTO specifically for this reason - trimming workforce but saving on severance $$.
I'll believe it when I see it.