Anonymous
12/15/2025 15:41
Subject: New hybrid "onsite" requirement and reporting to an empty office
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
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?
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.
Sounds like they should just straight up lay you off.
Oh, I left after RTO. So did my coworkers with options. That's one way to hit your numbers.
That’s the result. It is the shake up a lot of people need to look for a new job. When everything is going well you often continue on and don’t consider looking for a new job. Make me commute to sit on Teams? I may as well see if someone else will pay me more to do the same thing.
Anonymous
12/15/2025 15:39
Subject: New hybrid "onsite" requirement and reporting to an empty office
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
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?
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.
Sounds like they should just straight up lay you off.
Oh, I left after RTO. So did my coworkers with options. That's one way to hit your numbers.
So, it’s a win win.
Yeah, losing people with options is great for an organization. Best practice!
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.
Anonymous
12/15/2025 13:36
Subject: New hybrid "onsite" requirement and reporting to an empty office
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
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?
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.
Sounds like they should just straight up lay you off.
Oh, I left after RTO. So did my coworkers with options. That's one way to hit your numbers.
So, it’s a win win.
Yeah, losing people with options is great for an organization. Best practice!
Anonymous
12/15/2025 12:42
Subject: New hybrid "onsite" requirement and reporting to an empty office
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
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?
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.
Sounds like they should just straight up lay you off.
Oh, I left after RTO. So did my coworkers with options. That's one way to hit your numbers.
So, it’s a win win.
Anonymous
12/15/2025 12:39
Subject: New hybrid "onsite" requirement and reporting to an empty office
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
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?
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.
Sounds like they should just straight up lay you off.
Oh, I left after RTO. So did my coworkers with options. That's one way to hit your numbers.
Anonymous
12/15/2025 12:11
Subject: New hybrid "onsite" requirement and reporting to an empty office
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
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?
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.
Sounds like they should just straight up lay you off.
Anonymous
12/15/2025 11:01
Subject: New hybrid "onsite" requirement and reporting to an empty office
Start some audiobooks for your drive.
Anonymous
12/15/2025 08:25
Subject: New hybrid "onsite" requirement and reporting to an empty office
Welcome to life in the Federal government OP.
Anonymous
12/14/2025 15:53
Subject: New hybrid "onsite" requirement and reporting to an empty office
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
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?
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.
Everyone I know in a forced RTO are on Teams all day. It’s horrible. Plenty of people who dislike remote work don’t even know what Teams is or what the modern workplace is like.
Anonymous
12/14/2025 15:52
Subject: New hybrid "onsite" requirement and reporting to an empty office
Why don’t you all organize in office days where you can collab successfully? That makes the most sense to me.
Anonymous
12/14/2025 15:51
Subject: Re:New hybrid "onsite" requirement and reporting to an empty office
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Thanks for all the feedback. It's a lot to consider. I don't know how a company can deem someone more effective simply for traveling an hour each way to park at a desk in a lonely office. Imagine getting into a bad accident just to do that? Or you go to your office to badge in, you're alone, and have a heart attack or stroke at your desk and you drop dead because no one finds you until Monday morning?
It’s not usually about being individually more effective it’s about a corporate dictated priority and they are willing to lose employees over it. In fact sometimes they are trying to force attrition.
Through death?
Anonymous
12/14/2025 15:44
Subject: Re:New hybrid "onsite" requirement and reporting to an empty office
Either quit your job or quit complaining.
Anonymous
12/14/2025 15:23
Subject: New hybrid "onsite" requirement and reporting to an empty office
Unless it is causing financial issues for you, what's the issue? Plenty of people would love to replace you and drive to/from work to earn your paycheck.
Anonymous
12/14/2025 14:51
Subject: New hybrid "onsite" requirement and reporting to an empty office
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
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?
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.
Anonymous
12/14/2025 14:29
Subject: New hybrid "onsite" requirement and reporting to an empty office
Anonymous wrote: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?
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?