I’ve only heard of rejections thus far. Has anyone heard of any criteria that they’re using? Medical? Distance from their “Center of Gravity?”
19 replies (most recent on top)
If you weren't previously classified RTO, you are SOL. DF will be personally approving all exceptions, so you better have a good medical or religious exemption.
If you were hired on remote and it was part of the original agreement I can't think of a reason you'd be subject to this. Of course maybe they can change it at will but it depends. If it was that way from the start and was a remote position, it would at best be a violation of trust and integrity. I'd intensify the job search you should already be doing by 2x.
A couple of years ago our department had to convert any agency person we wanted to keep. We hired one guy who lived about 1:45 hours away but he was remote. The guy is a top contributor in my team and I supported his request to not RTO. As his LL6, I got cr-p for even bringing the request up. I was told that I just have to manage it and make him attend the office. The guy is now looking for another job. Although he admits that he won’t get any WFH job but has to find something closer to home.
Rules are not known. 60 miles or 1.5 hours has been already rejected. Your supervisor approval does not guarantee anything. Supervisors and managers already know that weak requests will not be approved, so they don't pass them higher not to draw an ire from above.
@ba it’s the executive leadership team that is out of touch, however, if you want a paycheck from Ford then you must play by their rules. Obviously this mandate is to force people’s hand to retire or quit without paying any severance.
Even though your logic is sound on requesting an exemption, don’t do it. If you do, management will deny it and you will have a target on your back and be laid off or fired for reason. It is a bummer, but if you don’t want to commute, find a new job closer to where you live or find a company that lets you WFH.
@ay nailed. I’ll use an address 60+ miles away (cottage, relative, etc.) if I can get justification for remote work, even though my commute from my primary home is only 15 miles each way.
@az so you’d drive 3+ hours a day to an office where there aren’t enough desks, and couches/stools are considered workstations? Hate to break it to you, but this isn’t the 90’s anymore where you get a private cube and can work efficiently. It’s noisy, packed, and the accommodations don’t exist anymore. It’s bizarre and you’re out of touch.
(FWIW, I was part of Ford's SRD in 2019.) I currently WFH for a company in the Metro Detroit area. I am 26 miles from the office if I need to commute. The morning drive is 30 minutes. The afternoon/evening drive can be 2+ hours due to construction and all the id--ts on the road. The same can be said when I worked at Ford. Commuting in this area just plain su-ks. (I'm sure it's worse elsewhere.) Spending those (sometimes) 2+ hours in traffic was just a complete waste of time. If I can WFH, meet all my goals and complete all my tasks, then why shouldn't I/we be able to continue to WFH? That is the difference between Ford and my current employer. Great leadership. And I don't need an exemption.
@ad absolutely nailed it.
@ab toxic behaviour?? Seriously, snowflake, you can go into work for the good of the corporation. WFh can be justified as efficient for short periods of time, but it fails over the long term because vital personal connections simply aren’t established over technology. I know it’s not the narrative anti-RTO people want, but it is the established fact.
Where do you want to draw the line, 60 miles, 40 miles? Then you’ll have people using other addresses or moving a few miles to save the drive time everyday.
Why should you not have to go in because your drive is 75 minutes but someone who is 15 minutes has to come in? You made the choice.
Unless you signed up under agreement to be remote you’ve got nothing to complain about. Move closer or find a job closer to home.
@aq I never got that argument, I think it’s a little bit silly. Does Boeing expect its employees to fly into work? Marlboro expect its employees to smoke a pack a day? Etc. Just because you’re not commuting into work, doesn’t mean you won’t drive. You might take more road trips with your family if you had an extra 2 hours each day.
I guess there is some small financial incentive there to put more miles on cars of some 30k white collar employees in SE MI, but not as big as the other carrots I tried to list out.
Think about it. You're asking a company who makes CARS for transportation if you can work remote.
Cars. You know, for commuting and driving. So is it really a wise choice to ask?
@OP The reason why you’re required to go in is because the ELT and the board would like to do layoffs, but they also don’t want to pay unemployment, so this way they can find people in violation of company policy and fire them with cause.
Secondarily, S&P500 companies at large have a lot of money invested in corporate real estate. Like billions of dollars worth. If we all stop coming into the office it’s worth nada.
Thirdly, these same companies get tax breaks from cities and states for having their employees sitting in the office.
Fourthly, the board members of most S&P500 companies and the big investment firms that control a large stake in them also have a stake in architecture, construction etc. Companies that all benefit from corporate real estate as well.
Basically it’s all down to the almighty dollar. To end RTO you’d have to end all these incentives for those running the show. Essentially they’d have to care about you as a human, and not just the bottom line. Unfortunately that won’t happen.
@aa I agree it was my choice to be closer to my immediate family and friends and a 75 minute commute is doable, sure. But at what cost and what benefit? We have technology to improve our lives for reasons such as this. I don’t work directly with anyone at my CoG and I’d just be taking Teams calls all day either way and plugging away at my usual work.
I’m not more productive at the office - more of my time is wasted by desk chats and personal conversations. These are a natural part of being in the office and aren’t reasonably avoided unless you hole yourself up in a room. Then what’s the point if you’re doing that? Less time with my family, money wasted on gas, vehicle maintenance, traffic aggravation. For what? Just because people in the past had to deal with sh*tty situations, why do we still need to if we can help it? If I need to go in for specific in person meetings, I’ll go in but I haven’t needed to speak to anyone at my CoG since moving to a new role several years ago.
I can appreciate how this can be seen as entitled, but if an objectively worse option is presented, why do I have to lay down and take it just because people had it worse before me?
Congrats! You just moved to the top of "the list".
@aa let’s not normalize toxic behaviors in a world where technology makes it easier to connect than ever.
Your choice to live that far. In the 1990s people would sleep under their desk sometimes if they had a long commute in the winter. 60 miles is nothing.