Thread regarding Charles Schwab Corp. layoffs

Someone's salty...

OP, your anger feels misdirected. You doing ok?

@1oqi+1qW2vH28 how dare you complain about our complaining?

@1lev+1qW2vH28 lucky to be employed by Schwab! 🤣 I'm praying there are more layoffs and I'm one of the lucky ones to be severed!

So what you are saying is that people with an accommodation due to a disability that is no fault of their own should get their pay reduced? GTFO

@1fux+1qW2vH28 Yessss! All this!

More complaining and whining. We have to go to office and there is not much most can do about it. Few brave will have to ba--s to jump ship, mist others who don't have it should just accept this and move on. Listening to all this complaining is more exhausting then the commute itself.

"Because 80% of the workforce are dedicated enough to show up in the office."

80% of the workforce were forced back into the office -- very very few people received approved exceptions - less than 1%. More people are WFH due to closed locations, and Walt specifically stated that the latter would NOT be included in the stated 25% that could be approved to WFH. Do I think remote workers should get less pay? No, but those forced to go in should get some additional benefits mentioned by others. I spend 24 hrs/month of unpaid/unproductive time commuting while only 10 hours accrue for PTO - why not more PTO for those having to go into the office at the very least, let us pick the days in and give us 20 days (not 4 weeks which = only 12 days) of WFH that we can use as we want?

I call BS on anyone who tries to tell me that they are more productive, more creative, more anything b/c they sit in a cubicle every day. My only productive days are Tuesdays and Fridays. Period. No chatter behind me, no listening to people on conference calls all day, no one commenting on what I'm wearing, what I'm eating for lunch, whether I take the stairs or the elevator. I am exhausted on Monday, Wed., and Thursday evenings - drained and have zero motivation. I dread going in -- absolutely hate it. Yes, some people prefer it and so they should be able to go in. I just don't want to be forced to go in because those who want to go in find it more enjoyable when more people are in the office.

Ummm saying no to medical accommodations opens company up for lawsuits. I assume whoever posted this ridiculous post is entry level or very young and naive.

As an RTOer you have better prospects to promote to Director level. That is an unwritten perk. The full time telecommuter, has less prospects.
Though they can work in their underwear…Also an unwritten benefit that RTOers don’t have anymore.

It’s so funny that people continue to rant about having to be in the office 3 days on a site that’s supposed to be about layoffs. You people still don’t seem to comprehend how lucky you are to be employed with good benefits in this job market. If you don’t like it leave. Period.

OP you simply do not get it. You seem to be under the impression that people who are RTO moved away or are choosing to be RTO or have some other excuse that you don't find acceptable.

Clearly you are unaware that some are RTO because there are office locations that are WAYYYY oversubscribed (some by a few hundred too many). Even if you live just a mile away from the office, the company has said there isn't enough space to accommodate. In other words, the company has a good number of employees who are currently in a forced RTO position no matter where they live, no matter their medical status, and no matter if they want/do not want to return. And yes, I know this for a fact because me and everyone else in my org are in a forced RTO status along with several others in our location. I also have a couple of direct reports in another state who are in the same situtation. You may have been unaware that there are a lot of us in this position because for obvious reasons the company isn't telling the masses.

There is absolutely nothing that these employees did that would justify reducing their pay because the company doesn't have office space that can accommodate staffing levels.

What a well considered and thoughtful analysis. 🙄

There is only one legitimate forced RTO criterion.

Does the position require physical presence? For the majority of unregulated staff the answer is no.

That’s literally it.

Working for less pay is absurd - you are paid for work, not cost of living, commute or other factors. The market would address wages with WFH as the employment pool is massive compared to near some building.

The rest of the offered rationale is equally flawed. Medical accommodation is medical accommodation. It isn’t generically time bound. Distance from office was predicated by Walt and HR telling people it was fine to move. Read that again - Walt even weeks before RTO was announced was telling staff that WFH was acceptable and staff needed to meet their commitments or change the expectations so we could rightsize offices. He’d then announce that the company had been working for months on the perfect RTO plan. That plan was so good it had to be delayed three months and now requires some to double up.

RTO is inane. It is to get people to voluntarily quit or justify severance free termination. It also boosts commercial real estate values. And some managers as so clueless that they think physical visibility makes them potent.

If an office is available and it benefits you or the firm in a meaningful way then go in. If individually a team has a reason to bring people in then fine. Make that call at the team level as necessary.

But Monday, Wednesday, Thursday all but four weeks a year if you live 49 miles away when your whole team is in another state?

No smart person would say that makes sense.

All that will be here come April are those willing to be abused. It is that simple and that’s what the EC wants - cheap, compliant staff that will put up with BS and scant compensation.

And for those approved for renewed WFH… don’t count on it. They will tighten further. It’s ego now. Think that’s wrong? Ask yourself how many hundreds-of-millions are spent on facilities per year and how much we’d save hiring outside a few metros? For profit companies should make economically desirable decisions. RTO isn’t.

OP -- So you are thinking Walt should take a pay cut? LOL.

Those of you who are questioning why you are going into the office as the only employee from your team at that location: this is a product of the work WFH environment; it didn’t matter where your employees were located if they were WFH. It should be obvious: new hires will now be clumped back together in like locations with their respective team(s) like in the past.

It’s just going back to being how it was before COVID. Yes, there are strong arguments about that being a backwards move but that’s what it will be. Just pointing out that an employee being by yourself at a specific location was more rare in the past when we attempted to group teams together in the same location(s). It’s too bad hiring managers took that COVID WFH freedom to the max when hiring, banking on the fact that it would last forever. Unfortunately as of right now, it’s ending.

Rumors are starting that RTO is going to be restricted further…along with other measures.

Office Presence and Value:
Merely showing up at the office doesn’t necessarily demonstrate your value to the company. I’ve observed individuals taking weeks to complete tasks that should realistically take only a few hours. Consider this: 10 remote workers who consistently give 100% effort might be more productive than 50 in-office employees who show up three days a week and produce the same output. Ultimately, salary and bonuses should be based on skill and results, not the physical location where work happens.

Work-from-Home (WFH) Productivity:
Research has shown that WFH employees tend to put in more hours than their hybrid or fully in-person counterparts. This is noteworthy.
https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/15259-working-from-home-more-productive.html#Use%20Optimized%20Tools%20to%20Boost%20Productivity.

Productivity Levels Across Settings:
Whether you work from home or in the office, the actual output remains relatively consistent. One hour of work yields a similar result, regardless of location.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/business/return-to-office-control-profits-leadership/

Penalties for Office Closure:
When a company closes an office, it shouldn’t penalize employees. In-office workers do incur additional costs for the company, such as office space, cafeteria subsidies, and other perks. Moreover, accidents during commutes or within the office can be costly. Perhaps those who choose to work in the office should contribute toward these expenses. LOL

Potential Solutions:
Incentivize Office Attendance: Consider offering free meals to employees who show up.

Count Commute as Work Time: Acknowledge the commute as part of the workday. Employees are typically traveling to other locations on company time, now that the world change maybe the daily commute should be on the company as well.

Childcare Support: For parents, especially those with older kids who can manage themselves, provide assistance. Younger children may still require childcare, whether working from home or in the office.

Parking Assistance: In cities where parking costs are high, consider providing help.

Unfortunately, the executive leadership seems indifferent, allocating funds to dividends and rectifying past mistakes ($8b) rather than addressing these issues.

At OP...are you in favor of giving those who have to pay to park more money? Parking in San Fran is expensive.

I don't mind going into the office 3 days a week or 4 days a week. The issue is my entire team is remote and I am the only one in my team who is going in to a office and join calls on teams. I am the only one in my team working for 2 teams and I don't get paid twice. I don't mind working for 2 teams. All I want is flexibility. My Manager, Director, Tech Lead, Architect, Product Owner, QA, Scrum Master are all remote and they are the folks I interact with on a day-to-day basis. So not sure what I gain from Going into the office.