Fidelity Ends Hybrid Work, Requires US Staff in Office Five Days a Week

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm "required" to be in office three days a week in big law. I am able to bill so much less in the office. Between the commute and the random chit chat, leaving my house at 8 and leaving work at 7 results in only about 7 billable hours. Working from home, I can bill 9 in that same time period. It feels even stupider to waste that time coming into the office when I mostly work for people in a different office, and 100% of my meetings are still on Microsoft Teams.

I am on track to bill 2,700 hours, meaning I work an enormous amount. A pace I couldn't keep up with the in-office requirement. I've simply stopped coming in and explained how hard it is to bill in the office. I figure they can fire me if it's so upsetting to them. So far, no one has said a word.

You sound like a cry baby.

How? They’re welcome to fire me. But I make them more money working from home, so it seems highly unlikely that will happen.

Your laziness or fact you live far from office is not an excuse for less billable hours. I did 3,000 hours billable one year with a 2.5 hour round trip commute. 2,700 from home is barely working. That is only ten hour days. If you look at Manhattan the average secretary in an office commuting to Staten Island or New Jersey or Long Island for work most likely leaves house at 7 am and gets home at 6pm with commute. ThatsT

Haha you either don’t know anything, are a liar, or refuse to accept the finite nature of time. I work from 8:30 am until at least 9 pm every day (often later) with a half hour break for dinner and sometimes a half hour to walk my dog. I also typically bill around 5-8 hours each weekend. That’s translates to 2,700-2,800 billables per year with one day of commuting per week.

I live less than 10 miles from the office, but that’s a one-hour commute. I cannot work while I’m commuting (I’m literally not allowed per work policy to take work calls while I’m driving).

If I triple the number of commuting days per week, that reduces my billables by about 200 per year, which translates to $260,000 in lost revenue for my employer. And for what it’s worth, I’m only required to bill 2,000 a year to hit my annual bonus. I might get thrown an extra $25,000 per year for hitting 2,700 billables compared to the 250k in revenue. My employer is getting a great deal by having me use my commuting time to bill.

But like I said, if they don’t want me and my work, they’re welcome to fire me for refusing to take my Teams meetings from my closed office downtown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm "required" to be in office three days a week in big law. I am able to bill so much less in the office. Between the commute and the random chit chat, leaving my house at 8 and leaving work at 7 results in only about 7 billable hours. Working from home, I can bill 9 in that same time period. It feels even stupider to waste that time coming into the office when I mostly work for people in a different office, and 100% of my meetings are still on Microsoft Teams.

I am on track to bill 2,700 hours, meaning I work an enormous amount. A pace I couldn't keep up with the in-office requirement. I've simply stopped coming in and explained how hard it is to bill in the office. I figure they can fire me if it's so upsetting to them. So far, no one has said a word.

You sound like a cry baby.

How? They’re welcome to fire me. But I make them more money working from home, so it seems highly unlikely that will happen.

Your laziness or fact you live far from office is not an excuse for less billable hours. I did 3,000 hours billable one year with a 2.5 hour round trip commute. 2,700 from home is barely working. That is only ten hour days. If you look at Manhattan the average secretary in an office commuting to Staten Island or New Jersey or Long Island for work most likely leaves house at 7 am and gets home at 6pm with commute. ThatsT

DP but lol you have no idea what a billable hour is. It is not the same as just the number of hours spent at work. And 2700 hours is a massive number, not “barely working”. You are clearly making stuff up.

I do, when I billed 3,000 hours I still did training, proposals, staff reviews, T&E sheets etc all on non charge. I usually did a lot of that on train ride home. So I leave work at 7 pm, hop on commuter train, pop a ICE cold Beer and Pretzel and spend time approving time sheets, drafting proposals, doing employee reviews. Oh the horror. And also catch up on train ride in and Sunday monrning. I would say I did 3,500 hours work, 3,000 billable. You do know there are 8,760 hours in a year. You should be be working a bit more. We used to have people who bill 24 hours a day and one guy once on a flight back and forth from Tokyo billed 25 hours in a single day due to time difference.

then there is double billing if you want to rack up. And there is bill in 15 minute increments. So do a bunch of five minute phone calls and bill 15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm "required" to be in office three days a week in big law. I am able to bill so much less in the office. Between the commute and the random chit chat, leaving my house at 8 and leaving work at 7 results in only about 7 billable hours. Working from home, I can bill 9 in that same time period. It feels even stupider to waste that time coming into the office when I mostly work for people in a different office, and 100% of my meetings are still on Microsoft Teams.

I am on track to bill 2,700 hours, meaning I work an enormous amount. A pace I couldn't keep up with the in-office requirement. I've simply stopped coming in and explained how hard it is to bill in the office. I figure they can fire me if it's so upsetting to them. So far, no one has said a word.

You sound like a cry baby.

How? They’re welcome to fire me. But I make them more money working from home, so it seems highly unlikely that will happen.

Your laziness or fact you live far from office is not an excuse for less billable hours. I did 3,000 hours billable one year with a 2.5 hour round trip commute. 2,700 from home is barely working. That is only ten hour days. If you look at Manhattan the average secretary in an office commuting to Staten Island or New Jersey or Long Island for work most likely leaves house at 7 am and gets home at 6pm with commute. ThatsT

DP but lol you have no idea what a billable hour is. It is not the same as just the number of hours spent at work. And 2700 hours is a massive number, not “barely working”. You are clearly making stuff up.

I do, when I billed 3,000 hours I still did training, proposals, staff reviews, T&E sheets etc all on non charge. I usually did a lot of that on train ride home. So I leave work at 7 pm, hop on commuter train, pop a ICE cold Beer and Pretzel and spend time approving time sheets, drafting proposals, doing employee reviews. Oh the horror. And also catch up on train ride in and Sunday monrning. I would say I did 3,500 hours work, 3,000 billable. You do know there are 8,760 hours in a year. You should be be working a bit more. We used to have people who bill 24 hours a day and one guy once on a flight back and forth from Tokyo billed 25 hours in a single day due to time difference.

then there is double billing if you want to rack up. And there is bill in 15 minute increments. So do a bunch of five minute phone calls and bill 15.

Troll alert

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

This is incredibly tone deaf. There are many people who have to find a way to make 5 days a week in person work, based on the type of job that they have. Education, healthcare, and other service jobs come to mind, and most of them aren't making gobs of money to outsource their family's needs. You might have little sympathy and argue that they knew what they were getting when they signed up for the job, but those are also jobs that society needs done.

And? It’s not sustainable for them either, unless their or their spouse’s pay or schedule supports the lifestyle.

\

I made 385K in person in a job pre-covid 5 days a week in office. It ended in early 2020. My next same exact job was 165K. Fully remote, could work anywhere. Total flex time, hardly any meetings No set work hours. I could just do my job easily in around 2-3 hours a day if I did it quickly. Heck I could do my job on Sunday if I wanted and take Monday and Tuesday off. Was great.

But reality was at 165K no one could pay their bills. It was not enough. Someone like me my spouse would have to go back to work full time, my kids take out student loans and I start pulling from 401ks, or sell my home and downsize, move to cheap low cost of living area or start spending down savings.

Or I could keep looking, find another in person job that paid a premium for in person. Choice was easy.

Those really flexible jobs pay less. Now if I was 64 when I got that job, heck yea I would keep it till I was 100.

We can comfortably live off of one income at 165 and probably do. But, we live in a house you’d refuse fully paid off and make different lifestyle choices than you. We can spend freely without worrying and pay cash for everything no debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having everyone back turned into really great thing. People know one another and feel a stronger loyalty now. The meetings are face to face. The productivity has gone up. It has become a really great thing, even though people cried at first.

Not true. Our meetings are always via Teams. I literally don’t have to see anyone at work unless I seek them out. All doors are closed and others have reasonable accommodations so they aren’t in the office. It will only be great for me when I get another job and can actually see my child without having to use leave

In person, no one uses the conference rooms and they still do meetings online even in the same office.

Yep, because someone is always out on leave or has an RA and hybrid meetings are terrible. We do socialize and have more one-on-one meetings in person which is great —but 3 days a week of that is plenty, I need two days away from people actually.

I hate to say it, but I agree, the RA people are killing our in person meetings. It sounds petty, but it's true. Hybrid meetings are so hard. In person meetings get more accomplished and people open up more about issues.

The most ridiculous set up is my office, where everyone returned in person but in different locations. There are 3 people in my location, but we all work on different teams, so all of our meetings are online. What is the point of being in the office? Our boss is in a different state.

Are you a fed? Long term they only plan on hiring at the one location and they hope the others will quit/retire. So this won't be an issue forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having everyone back turned into really great thing. People know one another and feel a stronger loyalty now. The meetings are face to face. The productivity has gone up. It has become a really great thing, even though people cried at first.

Not true. Our meetings are always via Teams. I literally don’t have to see anyone at work unless I seek them out. All doors are closed and others have reasonable accommodations so they aren’t in the office. It will only be great for me when I get another job and can actually see my child without having to use leave

In person, no one uses the conference rooms and they still do meetings online even in the same office.

Yep, because someone is always out on leave or has an RA and hybrid meetings are terrible. We do socialize and have more one-on-one meetings in person which is great —but 3 days a week of that is plenty, I need two days away from people actually.

I hate to say it, but I agree, the RA people are killing our in person meetings. It sounds petty, but it's true. Hybrid meetings are so hard. In person meetings get more accomplished and people open up more about issues.

The most ridiculous set up is my office, where everyone returned in person but in different locations. There are 3 people in my location, but we all work on different teams, so all of our meetings are online. What is the point of being in the office? Our boss is in a different state.

Are you a fed? Long term they only plan on hiring at the one location and they hope the others will quit/retire. So this won't be an issue forever.

DP. I’m not a fed but I have the same issue. Going into the office is just doing my same Teams meetings 45 minutes from home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm "required" to be in office three days a week in big law. I am able to bill so much less in the office. Between the commute and the random chit chat, leaving my house at 8 and leaving work at 7 results in only about 7 billable hours. Working from home, I can bill 9 in that same time period. It feels even stupider to waste that time coming into the office when I mostly work for people in a different office, and 100% of my meetings are still on Microsoft Teams.

I am on track to bill 2,700 hours, meaning I work an enormous amount. A pace I couldn't keep up with the in-office requirement. I've simply stopped coming in and explained how hard it is to bill in the office. I figure they can fire me if it's so upsetting to them. So far, no one has said a word.

You sound like a cry baby.

How? They’re welcome to fire me. But I make them more money working from home, so it seems highly unlikely that will happen.

Your laziness or fact you live far from office is not an excuse for less billable hours. I did 3,000 hours billable one year with a 2.5 hour round trip commute. 2,700 from home is barely working. That is only ten hour days. If you look at Manhattan the average secretary in an office commuting to Staten Island or New Jersey or Long Island for work most likely leaves house at 7 am and gets home at 6pm with commute. ThatsT

DP but lol you have no idea what a billable hour is. It is not the same as just the number of hours spent at work. And 2700 hours is a massive number, not “barely working”. You are clearly making stuff up.

I do, when I billed 3,000 hours I still did training, proposals, staff reviews, T&E sheets etc all on non charge. I usually did a lot of that on train ride home. So I leave work at 7 pm, hop on commuter train, pop a ICE cold Beer and Pretzel and spend time approving time sheets, drafting proposals, doing employee reviews. Oh the horror. And also catch up on train ride in and Sunday monrning. I would say I did 3,500 hours work, 3,000 billable. You do know there are 8,760 hours in a year. You should be be working a bit more. We used to have people who bill 24 hours a day and one guy once on a flight back and forth from Tokyo billed 25 hours in a single day due to time difference.

then there is double billing if you want to rack up. And there is bill in 15 minute increments. So do a bunch of five minute phone calls and bill 15.

Troll alert

+1. This post is so ignorant of law firms’ approach to billable hours it is hard to even know where to begin. It sounds like a boiler room for law school flunkies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

This is incredibly tone deaf. There are many people who have to find a way to make 5 days a week in person work, based on the type of job that they have. Education, healthcare, and other service jobs come to mind, and most of them aren't making gobs of money to outsource their family's needs. You might have little sympathy and argue that they knew what they were getting when they signed up for the job, but those are also jobs that society needs done.

And? It’s not sustainable for them either, unless their or their spouse’s pay or schedule supports the lifestyle.

\

I made 385K in person in a job pre-covid 5 days a week in office. It ended in early 2020. My next same exact job was 165K. Fully remote, could work anywhere. Total flex time, hardly any meetings No set work hours. I could just do my job easily in around 2-3 hours a day if I did it quickly. Heck I could do my job on Sunday if I wanted and take Monday and Tuesday off. Was great.

But reality was at 165K no one could pay their bills. It was not enough. Someone like me my spouse would have to go back to work full time, my kids take out student loans and I start pulling from 401ks, or sell my home and downsize, move to cheap low cost of living area or start spending down savings.

Or I could keep looking, find another in person job that paid a premium for in person. Choice was easy.

Those really flexible jobs pay less. Now if I was 64 when I got that job, heck yea I would keep it till I was 100.

We can comfortably live off of one income at 165 and probably do. But, we live in a house you’d refuse fully paid off and make different lifestyle choices than you. We can spend freely without worrying and pay cash for everything no debt.

Congratulations!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last two comments are Stockholm Syndrome.

Five days a week in the office sucks. Agree this is mostly to try to get people to quit so they don’t have to pay. Have no doubt that the big portfolio managers will have no problem being MIA on Fridays while everyone else miserably marches in.

100 percent. The posts are just confirmation of Dostoeyevsky's statement that a human being can get used to anything (prison, pain, tortured suffering)

+1. So much of modern employment feels like a humiliation ritual. How much are you willing to degrade yourself and grovel and for how small of a wage?

Being asked by your employer to go into the office is a humiliation ritual? It's called work for a reason and you're paid to do it. Please tell me that you're a troll.

Not PP but yes, it is when it is done for no other reason than to make your life worse, in the hope that some people will quit and help cut costs.

Work can happen at home too. I’m sure you’re one of those people for whom it is a foreign concept but in modern professional services jobs it is not necessary for the work to happen in the same physical location.

Of trust me there are a LOT of other reasons to require in office work attendance. I'll help you out with them..List all the reasons you want to work from home:
1. You can do laundry (this is NOT productive paid work)
2. You can watch your kids (this is not work and you are not being paid by your company to do this)
3. You can make dinner (you are not getting paid to do this)
4. You can get a workout in (not getting paid for this)

All the employers know whats been going on and they want it to stop and they want you to work the entire day.

So sick of these bitter takes. I was remote even before Covid and here's what my employers got out of me:

1. At least 10 hours/day where I was accessible via phone, email, Teams (even if I - the horror! - momentarily stepped away to throw in a load of laundry)
2. Seamless responsiveness to my West Coast staff during their working hours
3. Working through what otherwise would have been sick days (mine or my kids')

If the expectation is that I spend 8 hours in an office, then add in 1+ hours commuting, I am not going to turn around and make myself available at 7 PM for a call with the California team.

I know too many people in my industry (consulting) who are back at work 5 days a week only to sit in front of their computers all day for Teams meetings with people in other places. So pointless and punitive. In all my years of remote managing, I can count on one hand the number of employers who were truly taking advantage of the company - and they tended to be in roles that had been forced 100% remote during the pandemic but didn't actually make sense to be remote otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

This is incredibly tone deaf. There are many people who have to find a way to make 5 days a week in person work, based on the type of job that they have. Education, healthcare, and other service jobs come to mind, and most of them aren't making gobs of money to outsource their family's needs. You might have little sympathy and argue that they knew what they were getting when they signed up for the job, but those are also jobs that society needs done.

And? It’s not sustainable for them either, unless their or their spouse’s pay or schedule supports the lifestyle.

\

I made 385K in person in a job pre-covid 5 days a week in office. It ended in early 2020. My next same exact job was 165K. Fully remote, could work anywhere. Total flex time, hardly any meetings No set work hours. I could just do my job easily in around 2-3 hours a day if I did it quickly. Heck I could do my job on Sunday if I wanted and take Monday and Tuesday off. Was great.

But reality was at 165K no one could pay their bills. It was not enough. Someone like me my spouse would have to go back to work full time, my kids take out student loans and I start pulling from 401ks, or sell my home and downsize, move to cheap low cost of living area or start spending down savings.

Or I could keep looking, find another in person job that paid a premium for in person. Choice was easy.

Those really flexible jobs pay less. Now if I was 64 when I got that job, heck yea I would keep it till I was 100.

We can comfortably live off of one income at 165 and probably do. But, we live in a house you’d refuse fully paid off and make different lifestyle choices than you. We can spend freely without worrying and pay cash for everything no debt.

Well when laid off college tuition was 80K a year. (two kids in college same time, that is after some merit aid) mortgage $2,600 a month, property tax 16k a year, and car insurance and home insurance 8k a year. Utilities food and clothes around 3k a month. And I had a younger one at home.

On 165K I could no longer max my 401ks, it also ment each month I was spending more than I make on basic life needs. So no more vacations, buying new car, going out to eat, no home renovations, driving a 11 year old car and 12 year old SUV. Each month I have to pull money money from savings.

it felt like I was PAYING to work at that company. Paying meaning i end up with less in bank account at end of month than begining of month. Not a good life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

I agree that it's shortsighted and not the best policy. That said, what makes full time in the office unsustainable in 2026 that wasn't a factor in 1999, or January 2020? What changed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

I agree that it's shortsighted and not the best policy. That said, what makes full time in the office unsustainable in 2026 that wasn't a factor in 1999, or January 2020? What changed?

Competition with employers that offer hybrid or total remote work options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My first few jobs was 100 percent in person, suit and tie, ladies in business suits, makeup, pantyhose. I say we dressed nicer then most people do today for weddings, I now my white shirt better by crisp and ironed, my black shoes freshly shined. My tie, looking sharp no Kohls crap and suit freshly pressed and a name brand.

My boss had rule work started you work. We started 830 am but he wanted us there no later than 815 am so time to go to bathroom, eat breakfast, get a cup of coffee. Then straight to work. Lunch was someone run across street and grab something. Bring back. Usually you bring back 2-3 orders as not everyone had time. We all worked till around 630pm every day. So a good 10 hours. And we were always busy. No flex time, and we did not go home usually till everyone done. Rare occassion you finish early you help others. We were all cross trained. Company had a training budget, paid for CPAs, MBAs etc. That was on your own time.

In return the average 21 year old out of college made it to VP with a corner office and expense account inflation adjusted made 300K by 31. We got raises every six months of 8 percent, great bonuses.

Give a 50 hour work week with zero downtime at a high speed pace we were doing on average the work of 2-3 employees elsewhere.

I used to make 350K a year in that environment in 2006 which was 20 years ago.

And we saved a boatload on rental costs given how productive we were and on SS, insurance, and unemployment costs. Also few employees quit. Why, well no time to interview and also you have to take a 100K to 200K pay cut to leave.

Not saying that is for everyone. But if you are talking pure productivity wise we were lined up in desks, Bosses had raised platforms their desk on. Bosses had access to view your screens and strict on max 10 minutes person phone calls a day. Man we banged out work.

Would I take that job today NO! Would I jump on that job if I was 25 and single YES.

But dont pretend WFH is most productive. It is way better employees but for the Boss man it is not.

This is illegal if you aren't being paid for that 15 minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

I agree that it's shortsighted and not the best policy. That said, what makes full time in the office unsustainable in 2026 that wasn't a factor in 1999, or January 2020? What changed?

Competition with employers that offer hybrid or total remote work options.

Nice try, but the PP said it wasn't sustainable for *the employees/families,* not the employers.

It seems as though everyone's expectations have changed, which is understandable . . . but that doesn't make full time in the office unsustainable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

I agree that it's shortsighted and not the best policy. That said, what makes full time in the office unsustainable in 2026 that wasn't a factor in 1999, or January 2020? What changed?

Hahah, a lot has changed. The value of a dollar for one.