I’ve been WFH since beginning of 2021 and I’ve been told since I am over 2 hours from a hub that I am remote permanently. I’ve seen on here people talking about WFH being forced back to the office, but I haven’t been communicated anything regarding this yet. Is it really happening?
40 replies (most recent on top)
Hi @OP, yes it is just fear mongering on this site. You have nothing to be worried about, just continue as you always have been.
People keep asking this question as if someone is going to finally give the made up answer they are looking for. Yes, the company is getting rid of anyone remote and then people who aren’t in the right location. I personally think it’s ridiculous. But the leaders have told us the same thing many times. Stop living in denial.
Don't worry, you'll be displaced with all the other WFH positions. Don't get me wrong, I'm annoyed too as I was WFH for years, but the fact is they are focusing on remote employees. I don't know whether to be happy or sad that I'm in a hub. Severence would be kinda nice.....
Y.E.S.
Chuckey is the biggest offender since WF continues to list San Francisco as it's corporate headquarters. No surprise on this utter, inexcusable hypocrisy.
lol, with 5 everyone will be laid off, unless they are an exec in HY.
Yes in townhall they said they want us collaborating in the office. Within the next 3 years anyone who isn’t in the office will be laid off
in a word, yes. remote near hubs will lose their remote and have to RTO 3/4 days a week. folks not living within 40 miles from hubs will be laid off or offered relocation packages if their jobs are critical enough. per public leadership townhalls this process will take place in ‘24-25
The fact remains, if there is a target efficiency ratio they are shooting for, the source of the savings isn't especially relevant.
That said, I don't believe there is a target ratio. I believe Shart thinks our workforce is tainted and essentially all guilty of old scandals. He wants us all gone, and expenses are irrelevant. If we increased earnings 1000% in 2024, he'd still continue with his plan. It's personal for him at this point. He despises us and nothing but his departure will save the domestic workforce.
just the slave roles at the bottom
Two separate issues. If they'd give up all the real estate, they'd still layoff people because we still have too many people for the revenue we produce.
This isn't a government employee assistance department. This is a for profit company.
Do not believe any RTO policy changes dribbled on this site
"Who really gives one Flying F about whether people who have jobs and benefits, apparently including a bonus at the end of a year have to work in an office or in a home"?
Totally agree 100% with above statement! Who cares? With all the layoffs scheduled in 2024 just be thankful for having jobs to go to. It would be so ironic and justified if everyone so concerned about working on site or working from home all were relieved of those concerns by getting their layoff notices in January 2024. Just think. All of your worries vanish overnight and you no longer need to work for an employer that is so terrible.
The efficiency ratios BS is probably just that, an excuse, but let's imagine for a moment that it's true and HY just cares about cutting expenses enough that our ratios are good. If that's the case, shutting down the admin buildings and going full WFH style would save many thousands of jobs We spend billions on buildings for no reason. So which do you care about, people having jobs, or outdated buildings? That's why people aren't giving up. RTO and FHY.
@1eol+1qlmcoIf No, a branch with offices doesn't count as a hub location.
@1kac+1qlmcoIf Medical exemptions will only matter (keep your job) if you are within 40 miles of a go-forward location. if not, those positions will all be exited.
What about folks that aren’t in a hub city but reporting into an office/branch location that has office floors? I’m in a main city location so I’m doubtful that they will shut down the branch. Do you think we need to worry about being displaced this year?
Based on the amount of money put aside for severance, rto is second on the list in regard to getting rid of employees. This next year will be like the last, roughly 1k or more per month will be let go, with some jobs being moved to India etc. WF makes a ton of money, severance works very well for them. This company will be running at around 175k when it's all said and done, and that will be around 2025, or when shatt leaves. I was let go months ago, had nothing to do with where I worked, job performance, etc. It was just our group of techs being whittled down.
Are you all still on this dead horse debate...WFO/RTO? Can y'all just give it up please? Who really gives one Flying F about whether people who have jobs and benefits, apparently including a bonus at the end of a year have to work in an office or in a home? There are so many poor souls out there, laid off, having to support families and just hoping and praying to find work, any work just to keep from being homeless.
SMH in disgust.
If you don’t know, you’re not paying attention. I attended all four group end of yesr townhalls and it was explained in each one. Consolidating has already occurred. Look at Des Moines. The building I am in is closing Jan 25 and we’re moving to a new location. If you don’t like it, update your resume.
If someone has a medical exemption that allows them to work remote full time, any word if they will also be at risk of a layoff due to not being near a Hub location?
Employment litigators are lining up to nail WF for disparate treatment of its employees
You know employers across the country have always had disparate treatment for employees.
How? Different titles, different pay, different bonuses, different assignments, different benefits, etc etc.
Someone said Charlie got us out from consent orders, that’s not true. Our team is working on at least 5. I think that’s what the poster meant.
@1osb+1qlmcoIf What do you think is not true, changes to WFH and more RTO?
All anyone has to do is go back to 2019. COVID paused the previous “Location Strategy” that was absolutely in-flight with folks moving, leaving and being left because their position location did not align with the Orgs desires.
Standard Operations here. It’s going to take 2024 into 2025 to make significant changes. There will always be exceptions to he rules where some won’t fit the mold but will remain employed. End game is if you’re not near a hub for your business unit you should be prepared. Ride it out or exit on your own terms, and that is your call. I am going to ride it out as the little severance I would get will buy a nice vacation in between employments.
We are still under multiple consent orders, so not true.
@qcv+1qlmcoIf Is 100 percent correct. I have had to post several jobs that are currently filled by people on my team due to those roles not being in an approved location. In one case the employee has chosen to move to Iowa, but in the other case the employee did not, so I had to displace them. Complete BS but told to do it. Much more of this coming…
@qcv+1qlmcoIf has it right. If you WFH and live within 40 miles of a hub, you will be placed in that site. The timing @qcv+1qlmcoIf mentioned might be off. The employees close to hubs and the layoffs/relos will happen nearly simultaneously. There will be some flexibility built in so not everything will actually occur at the same time. The flexibility is based on LOB and personal circumstances, particularly employees with children.
Here's the variable: all of that is one initiative. RTO. There are other initiatives ongoing. The employee reduction efforts are in addition to that. So, some workgroups will be eliminated entirely. Here again, for continuity purposes, the actual timing will not be simultaneous.
So several vairables. Not to mention those employees that con a doctor into a "medical" excpetion. But we are weeks, not months, from it being rolled out. Personally, I believe it's all a sham. Chainsaw can't get us out from the consent orders so "efficiency" is his only play. Everyone knows it will hurt long term. But Chainsaw isn't worried about long term; he's just trying to fend off the vultures for as long as possible.
Believe me or not. But everything I've said above is 100% accurate. I'm in a position that is very aware and have first hand knowledge. February will be the bloodiest month. Heard it here first.
I was hired as 100% remote (with the exception of occasional work related travel) over 10 years ago. I'm over 75 miles from an approved WF work location (non-branch). I remain remote today but have been advised by my managers that for job security being closer to a WF location would provide more job security long-term. It appears they are really serious about eliminating most remote positions that are not because of an approved medical accommodation.
Commercial got hit real hard as far as RTO. I could certainly be mistaken but from what I picked up on they are all going 4 days per week in office. Attrition to follow no doubt.
So, does everyone w/o a medical accommodation FINALLY have to go to nearest location if within commutable distance?
I know people who've been told by their leadership that they don't.
Employment litigators are lining up to nail WF for disparate treatment of its employees.
Remote first, then hub folks, and then some of our India folks last. IT will get hit hard due to The Cloud and AI. If you survive 2024 then you could be safe for years to come.
That's really just to relocate everyone from 42nd St. They didn't take on that space to move people to NY.
I'm curious about the senior people that came over from JPM and don't live in a hub city.
In January anyone within 40 miles of a go-forward enterprise location who is working remote will be told they must go min 3 days/wk (unless medical accommodation). they will be given a few week's grace time to get any personal arrangements made before it starts.
later this year, anyone remote and not near a go-forward enterprise location will be told their position is no longer permitted in that location. Some will be outright position eliminations (job goes away), some will be offered same job if they relocate to a go-forward location. if the TM chooses not to relo they will start notice period. Whether it's offered as relo (vs outright displacement) will vary LOB by LOB depending on whether they need the position or the expense save more.
There will be lots of location consolidation this year.
It depends on the LOB, some will go through the charade of RTO to push attrition before downsizing you, others will just go straight to downsizing. Seeing the common denominator here? All domestic employees will go.
I'd like to know why my tech colleagues (incl. those who aren't techs, but who simply support them) who live within 10-15 miles of office STILL get to WFH 100%. No medical accommodation, no reason other than they got special permission.Why aren't they forced to RTO in 2024?
So many exceptions, it's a total farce.
@khh+1qlmcoIf
"I'm curious how they're going to manage these senior leaders that aren't near a hub."
CS just bought more floors in Hudson Yards, so his plan is to move them in with his building off Billionaire Row on Manhattan Island and if they don't want to move, they don't work for WF anymore.
Who knows , but it's a strike against you. Get enough strikes...
They won't get rid of all remotes though.
I'm curious how they're going to manage these senior leaders that aren't near a hub.
In the upcoming layoff, smart directors will get rid of their remote workers first, even if they are the best on the team, because eventually they will be forced to get rid of them anyway over the next couple of years. This strategy will minimize the headcount loss to a team.
For now, the goal is to can everyone remote. Many in tech have already been laid off in non hub locations.