The company already has the ability to move people.. The problem is how they actually do it.
Its almost always a last minute notice, like we need to know by the end of the day.
They never have answers.. how long will it be, etc? Its always we dont know
So the end result over and over is people say no, and they force usually from the low seniority up..
If they could make an agreement on this, they probably wouldnt have these issues.
From what I have seen time and time again is that people turn down temp transfers, even if its closer to home.. Why..Because they dont want to get "stuck" somewhere for up to 364 days. and who can blame them? They take the transfer offer, they might hate it and now they are there for a year.
What I propose it this: Any temp xfer, you have to stay for a minimum of 30 days.. If you like it, you can stay longer, if its not for you, then you go back..
Im willing to bet, you get more people to take these transfers knowing they would not be stuck in a place they hate for 364 days. Because the way it is now, people are turning down oppurtunities closer to home and thats crazy. Give someone a 30 day window and they might try it.. They might even like it and volunteer to stay longer.
Does it make any sense to constantly force the same junior people over and over? Ive seen senior people pass over a temp transfer that would cut their 1 hour commute down to 10 minutes..why? because of uncertainty and fear of change..
a 30 day back out clause ,most can live with that.
As far as the transfers out of state and long distances, you always have a percentage of people that take those transfers,They are single, kids are grown, want to get away from the wife.. You know what I mean. Establish a list of people who dont mind working far from home, Maybe state by state or the whole footprint, who knows..but make the damn list and draw from those people first.
Why send someone from pittsburgh to Philly when maybe a guy from Newark would want to go