The amount being spent on co-locations and flying remote employees in just to meet badge-swipe requirements has to be off the charts.
How does it make financial sense to let go of employees who were already local to an office, while retaining remote employees whose RTO compliance now requires additional travel and related expenses?
And then there’s leadership. The number of VPs and directors who remain remote while employees are being pushed into the office four days a week raises a pretty obvious question: why isn’t the same standard being applied consistently?
FHFA has been vocal about RTO and waste, fraud, and abuse. Maybe it’s worth looking a little closer to home. If reducing waste and improving accountability are truly the goals, start by examining the cost of these arrangements, the decisions that created them, and whether the RTO expectations being imposed on employees are also being applied to leadership. Sometimes the backyard needs cleaning before you start inspecting everyone else’s.
9 replies (most recent on top)
They closed Maryland data center and some directors got reclassified as remote but other low totem pole folks must report to Reston or MTC with 1-2 hour commute one way.
@ph they should
@km Do you think they care about what makes sense lol
@jq Makes no sense not to. That is how the world is trending these days. Instead of fighting like cr--s in a bucket, push for remote for everyone.
@g7 The problem is we are not going back to what worked in the past, and if we're an in-office company then people need to be in the office. Not exceptions based on cronyism/favoritism for certain people to remain remote.
@h8 exactly. I sat 15 minutes on that last page thinking should I let them have it or not and decided it's just not worth the risk.
@at it's anonymous 🤣
Stfu I think Fannie Mae should all be fully remote if we’re serious about saving money. It’s proven to have worked in the past
@OP Did you let them know via employee survey?