Many are terminated for refusing to relocate to offices long distances from where they currently reside and work. Others are seemingly given a free pass and allowed to work remotely from home. Those are justified as the employee making a contribution that cannot be replaced. Really? In a company of this size? Is this discrimination, or politics?
29 replies (most recent on top)
Make MOO great again.
"MOO!"
LMAO
Some never left the office during the pandemic. We feel left out and want an acronym of our own. We came up with MOO - More Of Office. Help us make MOO a thing. High five a coworker and say MOO!
I left AT&T (the "real" AT&T not disguised Southwestern Bell) going on 20 years ago this Fall. Since then I've worked for several large, Fortune 100 corporations and you know what?....it's really not that much different.
No matter what you might think should be the case, companies are not human. They are solely for profit organizations. Furtther, while some people you work with will go to bat for you when time are tough, most people are focused on themselves.
Sad reality of work and life but it is what it is.
Good luck with your future pursuits.
Out team had to RTO to Atlanta, but our manager still works from home. He lives about 12 miles closer to Atlanta than 3 people on our team. Call it politics or discrimination or just WTF else is going on.
Or those folks who were told to go to a specific location, which is their address in phone. Yet they never go there. Keep chipping the local CO.
This is why they recently modified the RTO Presence Report to show badge swipes at assigned location vs other company locations, as well as the recent changes in Occupancy Indicators for Network vs Market employees.
But its all pointless because each organization is following their own plan & rules anyways.
First, if your team receives such a mandate, see if everyone on your team received that same relocation mandate. I was undecided initially, but that changed to a solid NO when I learned exceptions were being made, just not for me.
“For many folks, this shouldn't even be called "RTO". It should be called "Move across the country, sign a lease/buy a house and get laid off six months after you move.
This is the scenario that keeps happening.”
Probably fine if you’re under 50. I haven’t heard of many (or any) circumstances of younger desirables being let go after a move. Just T firing a shot across the bow so other undesirables think twice before going forward with a move.
Or those folks who were told to go to a specific location, which is their address in phone. Yet they never go there. Keep chipping the local CO.
I know someone who doesn't even have access to their assigned location in phone. The policy is not even remotely consistently applied.
Can confirm there is an org surplussing all virtual who elect not to move. No waves.
"Why are so many still conplaining about RTO after all this time? Conditions for many management jobs have changed at T. There has been plenty of notice about this change. If you don’t like working in the office, you are free to leave. Were you thinking RTO was going to go away? "
Sambar, get off this site.
I declined to move to atlanta. I found another job within the month I was surplused. I have 6 months of ATT pay, plus my bonus and uninterrupted salary. I didn't reach R75, was just a year away from it and lost about 200k. my AVP said he had zero interest in helping me reach it, but cried when he heard that I declined to move. My AVP wanted me to stay and forgo severance and also said that it was not worth moving for ATT, because they weren't providing traditional relocation assistance. For him, he got real estate agent fees covered and moving expenses somewhere in the 20k range. I noticed that all of the advice I received from my leadership about this matter, was always steered to how ATT benefited, not me, however occasionally they would slip their true thoughts on the matter, which was that they are playing an odds game. They will take whoever can do the job and will last the longest, until their retirement is met. If you grind your livelihood into dust getting them to retirement, they will accept that.
I made the right choice by a landslide. Our organization grew immensely toxic and being in person with the central area of toxicity would have been bad for my mental health. Too many decisions were made on the basis of what was best for the advertisement of the work we did and not for the needs of the business. Most of you all and myself, lost their jobs to immense software licenses that were paid to many well known vendors. For a company that was looking to tighten its belt the last year, it went on a massive spending spree with software vendors. Something interesting around July of 2024 was going on, which we found out later, was when the agreement between Microsoft and ATT needed to be renewed. Guess who had no leverage? The company that vendor locked itself and eliminated its cloud experts in garage sales the last 5 years.
There has been nothing strategic about how ATT operates. It is and will be, a conglomerate of fiefdoms. When a fiefdom strikes first and wins, the financial repercussions begin a cycle among the rest of the organizations. ATT views it as a wave and literally calls its layoff cycles that now. Waves they cannot control. Layoff waves, as they are referred to, are simply the repercussions you see after another agreement with a fiefdom is granted.
For many folks, this shouldn't even be called "RTO". It should be called "Move across the country, sign a lease/buy a house and get laid off six months after you move."
This is the scenario that keeps happening.
“My org is getting rid of anyone not in ATL or DLS. Anyone. No special treatments for high contributors at all.”
Tell me what org and I’ll look it up and see what’s going on.
How are they getting rid of everyone? Do they just suddenly disappear or are they slotted for a primary wave, secondary wave, delayed wave, extended wave, or (burp), excuse me, a virtual wave?
My org is getting rid of anyone not in ATL or DLS. Anyone. No special treatments for high contributors at all.
“Why are so many still conplaining about RTO after all this time?”
uhh. because we like being employed and T is playing a game of out of State RTO musical chairs with our lives and income. Apparently not for you though huh?
Tell me you’re not 50 without telling me you’re not 50.
“AND RTO IS THE HILL YOUR GONNA PLANT YOUR STAKE ON?!?!? Really whacky the way this world turns anymore!”
Yes skippy, because all other things you mention only matter if you are employed. Whereas RTO is the deciding factor of continued employment. Clear enough for you now?
“Why are so many still conplaining about RTO after all this time? Conditions for many management jobs have changed at T. There has been plenty of notice about this change. If you don’t like working in the office, you are free to leave. Were you thinking RTO was going to go away?”
I’d be RTO will go away and WFH will make a comeback once economic conditions improve and the job market heats back up.
Give it a couple years, once competition is higher for talent it’ll be back.
If they got your # you will be laid off regardless of whether you RTO or not.
Why are so many still conplaining about RTO after all this time? Conditions for many management jobs have changed at T. There has been plenty of notice about this change. If you don’t like working in the office, you are free to leave. Were you thinking RTO was going to go away?
How can you show me my position is overly saturated and no longer relevant without saying it?!??!
Let's go Stankey!!!! Saw your happy face on National News touting the recent ratified union contracts...he knows where the bread gets buttered!!
NO standard bonus for years (even though your job description touts it as an "annual bonus"); NO meaningful pay raises, if any for years; NO mgmt pension unless your a "titled" position, can be skewed with "entitled" in most cases; Deplorable facilities and on and on and on
AND RTO IS THE HILL YOUR GONNA PLANT YOUR STAKE ON?!?!? Really whacky the way this world turns anymore!
“Comparing ourselves to others regarding RTO is no longer relevant.”
Oh but it is relevant when RTO includes relocating, uprooting your family and moving out of state or else you be terminated. This scenario is not a lower level decision but an upper level org-wide decision. And when entire upper orgs are treated differently than others and with dire consequences, we are absolutely going to do comparisons.
It is targeted versus non-targeted and is not inconsequential. Wave 3 out of state forced surplus is not the same as “hey, we need you to drive in to the office three days a week”
With their lack of transparency, it can easily be seen as discriminatory and biased.
There is no galaxy or court of law where T should get a free pass with their selective surpluses. The OP states that some employees are terminated for refusing to move while some are allowed to work remote. But it’s much darker than that.
T is also terminating jobs after ‘certain’ employees agree to relocate, while others are welcomed at their new location. Why? What are the circumstances? Where is the transparency.
It’s not as simple as saying that an employees job was re-evaluated and suddenly determined unnecessary, therefore it was terminated. There are relevant, big boy, lawful follow up questions that require answers also:
To the witness:
What criteria is used to determine that a job is so important that it must be relocated and performed locally?
Those are compelling reasons, thank you. I can see why you would scrutinize each position beforehand prior to asking the employee if he will follow the job to the new location. Walk me through this. the employee then received a time sensitive letter to provide an answer on whether or not they would follow the job or be surplussed?
Once you received an employees decision to relocate and follow the job, what happens next?
I understand that in many circumstances, although the employee agreed to relocate, their job was terminated anyway, is that true?
What was the criteria or trigger to re-evaluate the employees job and determine that it was suddenly no longer necessary? Given what you testified earlier.
Who specifically re-evaluates those jobs? Is there a documented process? Are there sing-offs and audits?
Of the employees that agreed to relocate, were all of those jobs re-evaluated or just some of them?
Of the jobs that were re-evaluated, what are the demographic comparison of the jobs that were terminated versus those jobs that were re-evaluated and not terminated?
Were there jobs that were not re-evaluated a second time when an employee decided to relocate? If not why not?
Thank you. And finally, of those jobs that were re-evaluated and terminated, how many of those jobs were entered into workday as a job replacement requisition?
None? Are you sure? Not one? Please remember that you are under oath.
The lack of full and complete transparency surrounding job relocation RTO is not acceptable. EQUALITY is not just a demand, it is required by law. Demand transparency!
Comparing ourselves to others regarding RTO is no longer relevant.
Prior to Covid, individual orgs set their own rules for the amount of days in the office. Leadership above level 2 or 3 did not concern themselves with where people were. I was a FTO forever but was always allowed to work from home. No one cared and this went on for 10 years.
Subsequent to Covid, leadership above level 2 and 3 got involved and pushed everyone back. So I got lumped in with others who just started WFH during covid.
Now we’re returning to how it was prior to Covid. Leadership set their expectations and took a step back. The rules you’re given now are coming from lower in the chain.
My org was told recently that we are fine doing 3 days a week like we have been, while I see old coworker friends who are given completely different expectations.
Point of this post is to tell you, comparing yourself to others on this page is no longer relevant. We are all in different groups, and going forward, the instructions you receive on when and where to work are being determined at a lower level.
Submit an EEOC complaint and see what they think.
What do you expect from crooked T? Office politics. How do you think Stankey got his job? Because of who he knew and who’s butt he kissed.
Would a reasonable person find it discriminatory? Probably, but AT&T dresses it up to be their Truth.
Both. It's the good old boys network. Many are given preferential treatment solely because of who they know. No surprise that mandated relocation would be managed the same way.