We all know the true purpose of these zones. Is there really any reason to keep this obligation to report after they let go, everyone, they wanted to. Are they going to stubbornly continue his charade or will things go back to the way they were before? Also, is WFH going to be reinstated?
12 replies (most recent on top)
The WFH agreement is not a binding contract of employment, so ATT can ignore it for anyone or everyone any time they choose, and there is no recourse. If you still have a copy, take it out and read it. Do you see the word FOREVER in there? If you'e trusting a sleazy opertion like ATT to honor any agreement they can get out of without penalty, you're setting yourself up to win a Darwin award.
@1szh Your agreement just means it's not a COBC violation. That doesn't mean not going into the office can't be a criteria for layoff. It's not a rumor. Top VP leadership said directly, if you are FOW, I advise you show up at the office five days a week.
Its pathetic that the employees are struggling to find a seat and many just go directly to the caffeterias. How can this be productive, collaborative or engaging and its all thanks to the company to put professionals thru this process. AVPs should be held liable like politicians if they are pushing this nonsense down to their employees it shows how disconnected their are with reality and day to day tasks. Put it at a supervisor level, if the employee is underperforming or there is an actual reason to go regularly to the office than so be it. But if instead of taking a step forward we are taking steps back then lets get rid of it.
@1szh: They don’t provide reasons now, so of course they won’t say that they are terminating an employee due to telecommuting. You better believe they are still weighing those factors in their decisions. If your position is eliminated entirely, an agreement to work from home won’t mean a thing at all.
@XvC7urQ-1mfo Isn’t that exactly what I said?
To clarify, I was not referring to the Engagement Zone layoffs. I was speaking directly to the rumor that WFH and not going into the office will get you laid off. That’s is not true.
I can’t believe how ignorant some of you are downvoting. What do you think the agreement is for?!?!?
If they didn’t terminate that agreement, they can’t lay you off for working from home.
There’s just too many rumors and no direction from leadership.
@ado: Only TW status requires a formal L5 approval. FOW only requires supervisor approval, which is suggested to be in writing like an email, but may be a verbal agreement.
@XvC7urQ-ari What are the details in the email you received?
@XvC7urQ-ari What are the initials of your AVP?
I’m in ATO as well, and I haven’t been told to report. I heard there would be an email around March with specifics.
There’s still a lot of people in this org that aren’t in engagement zones that were not affected in this layoff too.
All organizations will address WFH differently. So maybe yes maybe no.
Actually, FOW and TW has been taken away at least in my organization. We received an email from our avp regarding the new policy. I am in ATO.
AT&T should consider relocating their headquarters to California, I’ve never seen slums in Africa, but I’ve seen them in Haiti and India. Human feces everywhere, Randall will save millions in payroll, by forbiding bathrooms breaks while working
onsite, much better use the street...
What I saw in San Francisco looked similar. As one local resident put it, “There’s sh-- everywhere. It’s just a mess out here.”
There’s also lots of mental illness. One man told us, “Vampires are real. I’m paranoid as hell.” San Francisco authorities mostly leave the mentally ill to fend for themselves on the street.
WFH wasn’t taken away. If you believe that, show me where it says that in writing.
Employees have agreements with the company in writing to WFH. FOW and TW.
If they lay anyone off with an agreement, they will be sued and they will lose.