Performance rating will be tied to compliance to return to office mandate. If not in the office 3 days a week, you will be limited in what performance rating you receive.
Knowing AIG HR, they will sc--w this up royally as they won’t account for PTO, holidays or business travel.
In my AIG office you can WFH only 2 days a week, we don't have a choice to do more, not even with manager approval. I would like more flexibility though, I prefer to stay home 3 days a week generally but also be allowed to do more sometimes
Thank God CRBG doesn’t have this policy. I think that most would quit if they made everyone come in to the office most days
So do a large number of executives though I'm sure they travel.
Somehow PZ didn't realize the model had shifted to hire talent where it lives and allow work remote flexibility long before covid.
All the progress touted in his turnaround happened while people worked remote with more flexibility that he wants now.
A large number of international staff work remotely full time. Should not this be enforced on all countries.
Confirmed by multiple leaders. So this is not a rumor just an early notice to those on this site. Apparently PZ has been discussing this for months and now in the final stretch before communication is sent or managers are told to tell their teams. Last hurdle is international HR laws but it will be enforced in the US for sure. Not sure on timing but likely before 2023 goals are set since this will be tied to performance ratings.
Ridiculous statement.
Far easier to RIF someone remote vs on site.
Not the right thing to do ethically but on the easy front I'll bet you won't find many managers or HR people who will say in person is easier.
PZ wants people on site because he said so.
He likes old the old school management model despite promoting a heavily distributed business model.
Does anyone actually have a source for this? Or is it just a baseless rumour that’s getting everyone worked into a tizzy?
AIG wants everyone in the office, so that it is easier to lay them off, and walk them out the door.
Everybody will be let go if they don’t come to the office.
JR said AIG got RTW wrong with 3 days a week in his town hall last fall.
Said he read every exit interview and saw the challenges hiring and continued to advocate for more not less flexibility.
Number of days may change but everything I've heard says the work in office edict is driven totally from the man at the top of the iceberg.
Enforcing that your employees go into an office 3 days a week to collaborate which hardly happens when there in person, makes no sense and is a waste of time commuting.
Post ID: @2vnq+1lGmFEfP:
Should be filtered down to the unwashed masses next week. Also, unconfirmed word is JR wants to increase mandate to 4 days a week soon, with Fridays the only work from home day.
We are watching the slow motion collapse of the technology function at AIG. I’m sure it will end well, aren’t you?
Given it hasn’t been released as an official policy, there will be all kinds of HR issues when they try to enforce it. If you do your job and they ding you for it, I suggest filing a complaint asserting “disparate treatment” compared to other folks. Legal will not like reading those words in a compliant, as they invariably evolve into lawsuits.
Meanwhile, several groups are “remote”, allowed to continue working from home full time. Why? If they’re serious about it, then enforce it consistently across the company.
Best option is frankly to leave if you can, at least in technology, because it’s only getting worse, ladies and gentlemen.
This is nonsense. No announcements have been made about this. No direction given to managers on this.
Has this been officially announced or something that will be soon?
I'm full-time remote. Ready to be canned! Later.
Average 3 days to exceeds is reasonable. D-mb but reasonable.
If they say partially met - I don't think it will have the effect they want or expect.
That will drive why bother instead of let me go to the office.
Especially if it is a rigid or incorrect accounting.
Anyone that comes into the office less than 3 days a week will only get a partially met. No matter the performance.
There is no source of information today that can account for meetings outside of the office.
Not where someone worked over the weekend or overnight.
One would hope that any such approach is more reasonable and spirit of the policy vs work weeks x 3 compared to badge swipes.
I wouldn't be surprised if it is exactly that since this is ego driven.
Like college professors who dropped the grade based on attendance. If a student can do A work on tests and papers without being in class and is penalized it is an ego play.
Only worse here since employee flexibility toward work is expected after hours and on weekends.
What will happen to the employees only coming into the office twice a week? Will they be let go?