Please select one answer to each of the following questions:
If asked to relocate to a hub, would you:
1- Accept
2- Accept only if relocation assistance is provided
3- Decline and take a severance
If asked to return to the office in September, would you:
a- Immediately comply with the policy
b- Continue WFH and wait to see if/how compliance will be enforced
3b
The input on your choice of strategies was no doubt posted by an HR rep.
Maybe that person can provide more details of the lay off plans?
If they do keep your job with the requirement that you move, can severance be off the table? We have state/federal laws that regulate this.
Is there an assumption that if you decline you'll actually get a severance?
3 (I'm outside of Philly, I would consider this HUB)
I know someone who moved in 2020 to St Louis, but only his manager was there... then the manager soon left the company. So the HUB move was essentially for nothing.
1B - I would accept if the location is a desirable location of my choice. If not , I would resign.
B 1 I did not accept a office role. My role is WFH.
I already work from an office in my home, no need to relocate, i am on premise
3b
N/A
3a
You forgot Option 4) Tell them you're not relocating because the CEO did not relocate to SF Hub (like all former CEOS were in) for a role that pays $20+ million a year, so why the fu-k should you relocate at your expense for a role that pays a fraction of that?! That would be the option I pick. I forgot to add to the end of 4) ....Get fu---d! Who wants to work for people who calls themselves leaders but won't make the same sacrifice they ask of others?! If it's so fu----g important people relocate to a hub, then all of the leadership should too. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.
This is the ONLY company I know of that asks people to relocate for roles but won't pay for it, even for existing TMs who have worked successfully in non-hub locations. It's classless to the core, given they can afford it and most of the roles don't need to be done in the office anyway since they aren't customer facing. Then the higher ups work from home permanently while they ask their reports to come into the office. Can't make this up. This company is 20 years behind the times but they want attrition and lot of people to leave so they won't be flexible. Let's pi-s a lot of people off, burn bridges with them, get an even worse reputation as an employer and ask them to relocate as their expense. Who thinks of this bullshi!?!
I took a new role and it was only offered in hub locations. I'm in a non-hub but decent metro area. To get away from a bad manager and team, I took it and agreed to relocate after Labor Day. I kind of wanted to move anyway but am having second doubts now. They aren't paying for it. However, I'm not liking the new role or team so I may end up leaving or quitting before then. I think the only path is to GTFO of this company. The last roles I was in, they booted us out of the office and told many TMs in locations across the U.S. we could work remotely. My new role doesn't differ much but by golly you have to be in a hub come Sept. Whatever! It's a bunch of ridiculous bullshi! designed to pi-s people off so they'll quit. I'm working on it!
Low and behold, I guarantee you when/if I move this Fall, they won't even have a permanent seat for me in the hub city and all the people I will be working with won't even be there in that office, they'll be 5 to 9 hours away. It will be hotel seating. Could it get more insulting.....yeah, we're a multi billion dollar company, you must move and pay for it, but we won't have a permanent seat for you in the new hub city either so if the seats are full you'll have to go back home and work for the day. This cr-p is why I'm doing a lot of external interviewing because they have no respect for anyone. Zero. It makes me SICK.
3b