80% colocation target
8 replies (most recent on top)
That's definitely LOB specific. That's not across the Enterprise
Just another lie from nest of habitual liars. If cohabitation of all teams is required, why would we have more than one hub or core location? And why is it that it's tooootally ok to have one guy in India on a team of Americans? Are they going to fire the lone Indian because he's not in the CIC or HY? Don't think so. Like I said, nothing but lies.
headcount reduction - it is always about headcount reductions. Wells Fargo business is not growing - but CEO needs to show improved numbers to the board. the only way to do it in stagnation is to layoff people and ask remaining few to accept lower pay (reduced bonus) and take on more work. They dont care about location, or efficiency or even time zones - they only care about headcount reduction preferably without paying severance.
About time they cared about co-location. If senior leaders were smart, they would realize that people in a location with no leadership or peers are probably phoning it in anyway.
Jokes on them. No two people on my team are in the same location.
As others have said, it’s another way to justify layoffs. If there is no manager or many peers in your location, expect to be laid off at some point. In my group, leaders decided that everyone had to be located in 3 cities. Everyone else was laid off.
Co-location is the next phase of psyops that will be used to beat us down after RTO.
It’s guaranteed that if a lack of co-located team members can be used as an excuse to layoff large numbers of people, to rattle and frustrate the workforce, and to decimate entire teams, then co-location requirements will definitely be implemented.
Depends on the makeup of the team and how many need to be replaced with off-shore resources.