Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

Some real butt kissers here, muah.

Crazy to think you want Management to be wrong, just so you can say I was right. You know you lose and they will still win regardless?

Let's forget India for a second. Do you think your better then the pool of people in the USA that can do your job? Lol

Irony is strong in the post below.

Outsourcing or insourcing to India doesn't solve the bad management problem, but it does allow bad management to hide behind years of india OC development plans that eventually don't pan out, but who cares they will move on in 2 years, much like the way we do capital projects.

I agree @2drd, if a job can be done from home, most definitely it can be done from India. But first, Chevron will have to come to terms with the atrotoous pronunciation barrier of their English speaking skills. Language and pronunciation are key skills for productivity.

If your work can be done from home, it can likely be done from India.

So many hard as--s here. OP made a good point.

If managers can't figure out if employees are doing work from home or delivering ubereats, the entire premise of that function and team should be questionable. if the contribution of the the isn't measurable, wtf is the team doing?

Sounds like a few managers here are pi---d because I pointed out that much of what they do is cosplay and WFH proved that.

What a dork. I had to scroll through more pages than a typical Senate Bill just to get to the next comment.

Jesus Christ, @1pzo. Where did you copy and paste that long text from… your Kindle e-Book? Hint— Be more concise next time in your posts and maybe most of us won’t gloss over the point you’re trying to make.

Despite the endless pablum about “leadership” in business, those who lead - bosses, managers, and so on - by and large are not the ones doing the work, to the point that many of them have only the most tangential understanding of the tasks they’re demanding other people complete.

Having an office meant that these people could establish their value by existing - they were present, accounted for, always on the phone or behind a closed door, or perhaps in a meeting where they’d talk a lot. It was hard to question their contribution because their contribution was that they were there, and in the case of many managers, they were able to suggest that your success was theirs because they were there “keeping an eye on you.” In the same way religious zealots take every positive action as somehow influenced by God, your manager’s existence in your proximity was proof that they had value - assuming you were succeeding. And if you weren’t…well, they were there the whole time - why didn’t you ask them for help?

If this sounds like you were scammed, it’s because you were.
The office is a way for organizations to sustain the status quo and hierarchy. If an organization has to start considering whether the manager you have actually does anything, they have to start asking if the executive level does anything. Meaningful contributions to an organization can be measured, and oftentimes the higher up you go, the less tangible and meaningful these contributions may be. An executive may have a particular way with a big client - which may have fiscal value - but otherwise not contribute much other than consuming oxygen and glowering at lower-level employees.

The same goes for middle-management (and management in general), which has become a form of incentive rather than any meaningful driver of value in an organization. We need significantly less managers, and those managers need to actually do something (say, manage people) and be held responsible for the production and happiness of others. The problem is that management as an incentive almost exclusively attracts selfish narcissists that burn out young people.

To be clear, I do not think that this is news to any organization - it’s just such a significant problem to reckon with that it’s easier to ignore it altogether. If you start considering management as a skill, you also have to create a matrix through which you evaluate managers and the people they’re managing, and deal with the fact that you may also have never created any way to evaluate anyone’s performance.

And when you create that matrix to evaluate performance, you create a problem I’ve previously hinted at - the evaluation of the executive’s contribution compared to their outsized salary, status and freedom.
No company really wants to reconcile with this, because of the crushing truth - most executives did not work to become the head of the company so that they’d have to do more work. A “leader” in the modern business world has begun to resemble an Instagram influencer without the honesty of being famous because you’re funny or interesting. It is God-Capitalism, where the CEO isn’t expected to do anything significant but is given credit for all creation, all because he or she sits at the top of the totem pole.

The office has become a third rail issue because, unlike many deranged executive proposals, they actually had their hypothesis tested. When an executive pushes an organizational change - layoffs, restructuring, and so on - these things are usually accepted because there is no alternative offered. In the case of remote work, executives were forced to close offices, and workers were shown a win-win scenario where the boss got to get the same amount of productivity for a lower cost while also making workers happy.

As a result, there really isn’t a logical reason for people to come back to the office. And in place of the usual pragmatic managerial language - tough choices, efficiency, productivity, profitability - workers have been met with flimsy justifications that wouldn’t pass muster with a client or, indeed, in an argument with their boss.

Not having to go to the office also gave the average knowledge worker the same flexibility that the executive enjoys on a daily basis. An executive doesn’t have to report in, nor do they have to keep track of hours, nor are they going to be fired if they’re not “seen enough” at the office. Furthermore, they’re not actually expected to work eight hours, because they’re that important - they’re just expected to perform in some sort of nebulous way.

Without an office, the average worker can just focus on doing their work in whatever way gets it done to the quality and deadline that’s required in exactly the same way the executive does. Except I believe that there are many executives that believe they’ve “earned” this right - that their flexibility is a result of their hard work, rather than a perk that comes from being on top. Sharing this flexibility with others makes them feel self-conscious, but also triggers their condescension and superiority toward the lower-tier workers - after all, they’re “below” them and might not “know how to run their days.”

More specifically, flexibility also terrifies executives who thought they were getting the better side of the con of salaried work. Salaries exist as a means of not having to pay someone hourly, assuming that the net calculation at the end would be cheaper than whatever the hours worked would be - with the unsaid part being “I can make you work unpaid overtime whenever I want and there isn’t anything you can do about it.” Without an office, it’s much harder to trap someone and make them work those extra hours - either through positive coercion (company campus benefits like gyms and catering) or negative coercion (“be a team player”), and thus much harder to guarantee that you really “own” that person through those hours.

It’s not enough to get you to do things for them to make them money - they must have complete control and industry over your lives as long as you work for them.

With remote salaried work, you have absolutely no way of guaranteeing if that person is working “the whole day.” And I believe there are many companies that see salaried work as a form of ownership - a means of trapping someone and manipulating them for a certain amount of hours a day, rather than purchasing their talent and ability to produce. Without an office, it’s hard to push manipulative corporate cult mantras like “we’re a family” because, well, you can’t guarantee everybody’s watching.

In short, I believe white-collar workers are realizing that a lot of corporations are full of sh-t. While it’s been obvious for a while that no single executive at a corporation has ever worked harder than the average blue-collar worker at one of their factories, it’s always felt plausible that an executive in a white-collar business could still “do” something and understand the world of those beneath them.

The funny part is that this situation will only get worse for companies that won’t accept remote work. Young people love working remotely, and are increasingly less tolerant of believing in things just because that’s the way they were always done.

As the workforce ages, companies are going to find themselves increasingly finding the workforce considers the office the equivalent of sending a fax - an antiquated way of doing business.

To the field workers so against WFH. In solidarity with the office workers let's all work OT for free going forward like the office workers have to do.

@1ger Hahaha, it is very clear what you want to do if you were capable of having a leadership role. Please continue fantasizing on what your leaders do or dont.

@1udp, We don't need all the scrutiny to ensure compliance. Managers have been able to retrieve the data to see who is dogging the system since forever. Instead of sending out a warning shot saying "Get back into the office or else...", they should have skipped straight to the "or else" part and sacked those that were abusing the hybrid schedule. Then those of us that were doing the right thing from the beginning wouldn't have this bad taste in our mouths.

Here’s the the thing. They know most folks can do their work remotely. The reason why they’re doing this is to sustain corporate real estate values. It’s a big part of a lot of the portfolios. The more corporate real estate values decline, their portfolios declined, and they have less wealth.

The other reason for RTO is, it’s an ego thing for them. Think about it if you’re a high-level leader, everyone knows who you are and when you walk into a room, you’re instantly recognizable and people come up and say hi and kiss your a-s. If the office is empty, and everyone is working remote, they don’t get the same ego boost.

Remember the higher up you are the more your job is just walking around and taking tours of different locations while traveling first class on the company dime. I’m sure on many of those trips they bring their spouse along and it’s fun for them. of course I’m sure many of those trips they don’t bring their spouse along and it’s an excuse for them to sleep around outside of their relationships or marriage.

So when you think about it in those terms, RTO makes complete sense.

@1uwi Def agree both with your OP and what you said.

O&G managers are stuck in the 20th century, and so are the cultures of O&G companies. They view WFH as “less manly” or some BS.

I left O&G for aerospace five years ago. It has its problems, but it’s def better in terms of working culture. Find where you want to go, ramp up your skills, and make the jump.

Also, ignore the massive downvotes. There’s a full-time troll who’s operated here for years who does nothing but downvote posts he doesn’t like (loser).

OP here, yea, I get it. Honestly was just venting from a long week.

I appreciate that we have a little flexibility, which is nice, but the lack of transparency on layoffs and low salary actions is creating a lot of anxiety and paranoia…

Yes, I could absolutely hop jobs easily to find a 100% remote gig, and maybe it will come to that.

It’s still f’d up that our leaders told us to take what we’re given and move on when they continue to cash in.

Anyway, /rant

@OP The typical O&G company doesn’t give AF.

They don’t need talent. They just need people to keep the systems running. Average skills & intelligence does just fine.

My advice if you want WFH is to switch industries. Worked for me. Another upside is not having to look over my shoulder every ten minutes for incoming layoffs.

Honestly if you want a work from home gig then find one. It wont be in Oil and Gas but maybe you have a portable skillset.

It has been obvious that companies would force you back from the beginning. Keep in mind you had 4 years to work from home if you milked it.

Do I like being treated like an elementary schooler. No. Do we need to do this to have some very basic level of compliance. Yes.

Interesting the Math was all about you? If you feel Teams really is a better way them being inperson I suggest you look around in your next teams meeting. Would it actually matter if you didn't attend?

We have 2 days at home and only three in the office. I am happy with the hybrid schedule. Would I like more time at home? Of course, but I will also take what I can get. Be thankful. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth as they say. I don’t want to lose it. We haven’t lost it yet so show up and don’t ruin the good thing we have.

I just wish I had an actual office to work from. Talking over people while on a call is annoying. Plus No one honors the flex reservations. What’s the deal.

So you’re considering yourself a good employee.

WFH ended March 2022. Why is this even still a discussion?

did you consider the calculations before we were all sent home in 2020 - are they they same

lol, looks like we hit a nerve

Maybe the company should push RTO more aggressively. Perhaps doing so will rid the company of the majority of its dead wood employees and alleviate the need for layoffs.

OP, so you did the math. That’s great. Now please tell us all about the excellent pay and benefits Chevron gives you. Get my point now?…. Get back into the office or find yourself a new job with another company. Stop whining and realize the WFH gravy train is over.

Bye, Felicia.

You could choose to live closer to the office. Or take the Park and Ride bus. Or vanpool. Gas and tolls is your personal choice. It’s not like the company is paying you poverty wages.