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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Fed who has been back 5 days for past 14 months, I have no sympathy. Remote and hybrid work are being phased out.

That's not even true. I know multiple people in different companies that are still doing remote or hybrid.

Agree this is not true and I know many people still working remote- myself included. Large contracting company.

I am hybrid and work in healthcare in an office type role

My doctors work hybrid/military and when they do call appointments, they are clearly at home. Same with some of the office staff.

[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.

An inconvenience, maybe, but calling RTO a humilation ritual is just histrionics. This is a First World problem, check your privilege. And it you don't like your employer's terms, work for yourself.

My spouse was work from home long before covid then made to go in five days a week. The 60-90 minute commute was terrible and expensive and they used to work those hours and beyond and they just worked office hours. Productivity went down and it was an issue with customers and co-workers all over they world. Everyone stopped the late night and early morning meetings as if the company would not give flexibility, why should they.

[Anonymous]

It's as if they want us workers to have zero flexibility supported by a stay at home spouse, but they aren't increasing our pay, so dual income families with younger kids are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right now the job market is very tight and companies have their pick from many people desperate for a job when hiring. If the economy ever switches back to a good market for job seekers, this will be a negotiating point and companies will lose out on the best talent.

That is a big if, considering our current president seems Hell-bent on destroying the economy and has been failing to create jobs.

This truly makes no sense to me. If they are looking to cut costs, they can downsize or eliminate office space. Plus by going remote, they have access to the best talent from across the country rather than only the immediate metro area.

DP. Step 1. cause attrition via forced RTO

Step 2: once right sized, then start allowing WFH again and eventually reduce office space overhead.

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m also a fed who is back in 5 days a week with no leniency for sick days. It was horrendous at first but now it’s fine. We’ve all started making work friends again, collaborating more, eating lunch together, in person meetings are way better than teams meetings. I think most of us wish we were 50% telework (or even one day a week!) but it’s been okay. I’m surprised I’m even saying this

+100

I am a fed who is back in 5 days a week. My colleagues are mostly elsewhere. I have one shared staffer here. I just sit on teams calls and chats. Rediculous

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have been back full time since last March. It sucks. It sucks more now than it ever has. Whoever is saying it is “fine” has a real Stockholm syndrome.
Most folks have their doors closed and lights turned off. “In-person” meetings are still on Teams. People are miserable (other than the current admin idiots). It won’t get “better.”

+1000

[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.

For sure. I just joined a hybrid office with flexibility for additional WFH if needed. I would have had to have taken all week off last week to deal with my kid’s long illness if I wasn’t allowed the flexibility to WFH. It makes zero sense not to take advantage of modern tech.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stealth layoffs. They are hoping for attrition.

Bingo.

But changing work location is constructive dismissal, so it's still a layoff.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m also a fed who is back in 5 days a week with no leniency for sick days. It was horrendous at first but now it’s fine. We’ve all started making work friends again, collaborating more, eating lunch together, in person meetings are way better than teams meetings. I think most of us wish we were 50% telework (or even one day a week!) but it’s been okay. I’m surprised I’m even saying this

+100

As a fed I’ve gotten used to being back. But I have a short commute so it really doesn’t impact me. If I had to drive an hour plus to and from work I’d find this draining. Still as much as I don’t mind being back, one day a week would be a nice balance. Fridays are literally dead here. No point in being in an office those days

[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.

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.