Anyone hearing that those not coded as WFH and flagging as non-compliant are soon going to be termed?
Hearing “its out of my hands soon” from those who are providing cover for those sneaking by and that the orders coming from above.
Looking at another possible 100+ to make the 2900 number an even 3000
I was a full time remote and laid off as was the majority let go in my group. I was never hybrid nor was requested to be. I feel they're dumping as many remotes as they can...never a bad performance review in 13 years.
competing companies offering WFH are going to be eating good. imagine giving that up in employee negotiations LOL
The distance isn't really the point, but rather the time taken out of your life in transit better spent elsewhere, transpo costs, lunches, etc. and as everyone knows childcare is through the roof expensive. Covid proved WFH works for many that don't have to be physically there - shipping and receiving, customer facing, etc. So I absolutely will not be subject to an arbitrary office attendance policy. Occasional as needed and travel no problem at all.
It's far fetched but maybe one day we'll be treated like adults.
That would be nice.
@ivf+1uZcuGjm this only applies if you're within 25 miles of an office. This is nothing new, it was implemented and announced last year when they rolled out the retarbed WorkOne nonsense.
No, i definitely have not heard that.
What they're doing is taking those full remotes and turning them to in state wah. For example, if you live in Chicago and we're full remote now you are IL WAH with hybrid telecommute because there is a Chicago office. Another example, if you are MO and not near St Louis or KS office you go from full remote to in state MO WAH without hybrid telecommute.
And to get a wider net HR will simply list all 50 states as WAH.