Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.
This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.
This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.
Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To be honest. Any company 90 percent of workers sit in "cubes" and shoot out product. Worker Bees. And only 1-3 percent of company are in the Senior Management team with Perks. Everyone cant be a SVP or higher.
The downside of remote is it raised expectations once laid off. An old coworker at a very high paid job that went fully remote in 2020 just got laid off.
I spoke to them and I got yes looking I want fully remote, if in person only hybrid and at most 2 days a week in person. Plus I want a short commute.
She then added I want my old salary at least and flexibility for kids appointments and home repairs, dentist appointments during work hours.
She had all that company that laid her off. She also was making $200,000.
She may get it, but when unemployed that is a big list of demands and salary
This is only proof that companies don't care about their workers. If she was capable of doing her work for the flexibility in return, who cares? These offices just want people to come in -even if their jobs don't dictate the need- just b/c they can. No matter how miserable it is for their workers.
Anonymous wrote:We had call with senior level management on Monday where our President announced that we're all going back 3 days week toward the end of September. A bunch of managers in other areas of the country raised their hands and said they didn't have enough office space for all their people to sit in. They all downsized over the last few years. Our President was flummoxed and said that was something we'd need to work through.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.
This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.
Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.
Anonymous wrote:To be honest. Any company 90 percent of workers sit in "cubes" and shoot out product. Worker Bees. And only 1-3 percent of company are in the Senior Management team with Perks. Everyone cant be a SVP or higher.
The downside of remote is it raised expectations once laid off. An old coworker at a very high paid job that went fully remote in 2020 just got laid off.
I spoke to them and I got yes looking I want fully remote, if in person only hybrid and at most 2 days a week in person. Plus I want a short commute.
She then added I want my old salary at least and flexibility for kids appointments and home repairs, dentist appointments during work hours.
She had all that company that laid her off. She also was making $200,000.
She may get it, but when unemployed that is a big list of demands and salary
Anonymous wrote:In my case pre-covid they was zero work from home and very strict on work hours. Being late or leaving early could get you in trouble.
As a result many people lived near the office. Literally I have three people near me who live less than 3 miles away.
We went to three day a week at home and even people who live walking distance take them.
They just like not coming to work, I will leave it at that.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.
This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.
Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.
This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.
Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.
This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.
Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.