Since the McElfresh memo on Jan 4, I have been trying to figure out why it was sent out on Jan 4 if the notification date of involuntary surplus is Jan 28 knowing that it would cause all manner of fear, confusion, and questions. I know they want us back in the office but they also need a convenient excuse for the surplus to avoid lawsuits. So I think geo is a good guess for the first wave on Jan 28. But what if they also announce a NEW official change to the WFH policy on Jan 28 that makes it a COBC violation to WTH w/o an exception granted by a level 5. So if the employee doesn't comply they will be forced to quit (no severance) or they can be fired for COBC violation w/o severance. Is that why Jeff sent the memo out to prepare everyone for this major change? I have no idea, just need to know.
10 replies (most recent on top)
To answer your question - the email was to replace pre notification calls. It put everyone receiving them on notice. Another will be sent out at the end of the month. No more calls will be held.
I don’t think next week is the ‘big’ one. I don’t think they have it all together yet. Just my opinion.
They can care less who you are, good or bad, cut to the bone is priority#1, and hiring young and cheap labor
If you don't live near a collaboration zone, I don't think they make it a "code of business conduct" violation not to report to one. I live about 150 miles away from the closest zone. It's unrealistic to expect one to commute to the zone daily. If that becomes a reason to surplus me, I can understand that. However, in my state, you can be terminated for refusal to relocate, but you will be eligible for unemployment benefits. Not living in reasonable commute distance has not impacted my practical job performance (have always been rated highly); for one thing, my coworkers aren't even in the same state; in fact, they are in different geographical regions of the country. However, given that things are changing, I'm okay if they decide to surplus me due to my geographic location and the unrealistic expectation of commuting 300 miles a day. But I'm quite sure I will win out with getting unemployment benefits. Whatever will happen, will happen. I'm not stressing too much because I'm prepared, and it's just one of those things. Life will go on, and I've had ample time to get things together should this come to pass.
Last time the telecommuting policy was changed there was a 5-6 month lead time from rollout of the policy to full implementation so I think OP’s suggestion is unlikely.
It was for those who want to volunteer to leave as you have to offer the opportunity to all employees
Yup. If you get cut for being in a non Cz they won’t care if you want to move or not. They’ve had this planned for awhile
I think they don't care they cause fear and think they are 'helping' by warning us so we can look for other jobs. Another thread shows that the "JVB (@JenVanBus). SVP of Operations" org is going to be receiving an email tomorrow revoking all teleworking. So I guess we'll see.
@ego: You have no idea who is on what list. Anyone who is planning to relocate to a collaboration zone because of the Jan 4 memo is in for a world of disappointment when they find out that HR compiled these lists back in September and current actions have absolutely no bearing on whether they will be surpluses or not.
Most likely it is to give people notice to move to one of the 10 locations. If they will not move, they will be gone. I know of managers that leave in a collobaration zone and come to the office 2x a week and that seems to keep them off the list.