Reply to New hybrid "onsite" requirement and reporting to an empty office

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "New hybrid "onsite" requirement and reporting to an empty office"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]NP. What I don't like in this case and other is the company changing its policy. I'm going to get it here that they have a right to do whatever they want and if you don't like it, get a job. Fine, but while any decent job brings in hundreds of resumes, it's not easy finding a good person who fits in.

But there is also another slant to this. People take jobs for a variety of reasons. If a company changes it's policies, it's a dirty trick. When does it cross the line?

[/quote]

Dirty trick?  So a company is forever bound to the policies that existed when employees were hired?  Even when they may have been hired during an unprecedented pandemic?[/quote]

Stealth layoffs via RTO-to-be-on-Teams-all-day are bad. That's not what deciding your organization has an operational need to be together in person looks like. [/quote]

Sounds like they should just straight up lay you off.[/quote]

Oh, I left after RTO. So did my coworkers with options. That's one way to hit your numbers. [/quote]

So, it’s a win win.  [/quote]

Yeah, losing people with options is great for an organization. Best practice![/quote]

That’s what is so strange about corporate RTO. Instead of getting rid of poor performers, it’s based on who lives closest to the office and/or will commute.

It’s suggesting that every single person is interchangeable if a company doesn’t want to choose who to layoff. Except everything else suggests otherwise.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics