The remote and wfh accommodated employees are not having to deal with any of this BS. Isn’t that discriminatory to able bodied employees? They are making more money ,too, not having to commute, etc. I mean no wonder morale is so low! People in office are tired of the whole thing. We are not all playing on even turf. People that do the exact same job are required to be at 60% or more while the majority are at home raking in the savings! Boooooooooo! US Bank has some issues that need to be addressed asap!
32 replies (most recent on top)
Not sure why you’re getting mad at remote workers when it’s the a--hats in charge who are causing the awfulness.
People who have accommodations are forced to jump through ridiculous hoops to keep them and people who are designated remote are sc--wed over in terms of merit increases and career. No one is being treated well and it’s all sh-t.
@jt This is me. I actually prefer being in-office. But my location was left off of the hub list and they eventually closed the local office which made me WFH. Now I have no opportunities for advancement and my earning potential has been effected negatively. I cannot move to a hub location. So now I'm stuck.
Don’t overlook there’s a big portion of remote workers who used to go to an office before and would now too absent their market not being named a Hub and office locations being closed. There’s a significant portion of “remote” workers that are only remote because leadership forced it that way.
So do the remote and Ada people have an additional performance goal in workday that they have to adhere to in order to keep their job or is it just the lucky hybrids? I do the same exact job as my peers but they are only required to come in 1 day a week…again.. we do the same job! It is unethical that I should have an additional performance goal than they do. Disparate treatment at its finest.
@hg FK here: Fair point, but it's not like our salaries skyrocketed either. We've all been forced to accept below COL raises, unless we've changed roles in the interim.
@fm there were MANY of us who were hybrid but were moved to permanent remote (not just verbal, by our office location in HR) during COVID years. People made decisions based on this. If someone was hybrid and didn't have a remote designation and still opted to move? Those folks I don't feel for. The folks like myself, and my peers who were actually designated to permanently remote as well as those folks hired remote before should have been left alone. There was no 'this isn't meant to be permanent' it was fully championed that we were remote now, congratulations. Go forth and live and move where it suits us. There wasn't a catch then. This context is important for when you're talking about people that moved
@fk they accepted in-office expenses based on cost of living 7 years ago. Pretty self-absorbed vantage point you have.
People who were hired remote should stay remote. Those who were hired on-site or hybrid should RTO. It’s not rocket science.
I do feel sorry for the remote workers who are now capped on promotions but other than an implicit assumption promotion was never in the contract to begin with.
I do not feel sorry for those who were on-site/hybrid but then assumed that WFH would be permanent and made accommodations based on that assumption. Terrible planning. Worst are those who just upped and moved to a cheaper place far away from any hub and now cry about being unable to RTO. What were they thinking?
Anyway, downvote away!
@ew My expectation would be the vast majority of the people who were RTOd were people who were expected in the office regularly prior to the pandemic. While still sympathetic to anyone wanting more flexibility, it's certainly not an unreasonable expectation; it was part of your job expectations before, so why shouldn't it be now? The "bonus money" is going back to what it was meant to cover in the first place.
Former full-time WFH people, who were largely people hired outside of their locations normal market with no real reason to report to an office (that's me), we have a bigger beef. We accepted our roles AND starting salaries based on not having to commute. Our life expectations were set around that. The other group already accepted the expense; we didn't.
@dy and you don’t think in-office employees have had to uproot their whole lives?
@da asking people to uproot their lives with housing costs the way they are is not reasonable. A lot of people got mortgages locked in under 3.5% and selling and moving means facing much higher housing costs to be within a reasonable commute of an office on top of the insane interest rates. Couple that with rolling layoffs and no job security, moving for this company would be fu--ing stupid
Let's recap.
Why are only the people who returned to office having to meet a performance goal of 60% in office requirement ?
idk mate, looks like another unsolved mystery to me.
@da Just based on the headcount cutting here alone lately, don't you think asking people to uproot their lives for a job that might be gone a month after they arrive might be a bit much? It's not cheap to move; been there, done that, too many times. And at least where someone is now, they probably have a support network.
@cf then move to a hub, in-office workers have to live in these cities, and it is part of their performance measurement. Don’t you think a lot of hub employees would wish to live elsewhere too? But they can’t now. People relocate for work all the time.
I hate to agree with OP, but unfortunately, they’re right. I spent an entire year trying to get a WFH accommodation while my manager repeatedly assured me there was no reason to worry about tracking or it somehow affecting my performance. This was during the early days of RTO policy being rolled out. Look how that turned out :)
Meanwhile, coworkers have moved across the country, nowhere near a hub, and are happily working from home. Others have even been promoted, apparently because they were strategic enough to exploit the loopholes created by the company’s wonderfully ambiguous RTO messaging.
When the rules are this inconsistent, it’s not exactly shocking that it creates resentment and a sour dynamic within a team. If WFH is an option, it should be an option for everyone who meets the same criteria, not a prize awarded to the people who happen to interpret the corporate gray areas most creatively. Obviously, legitimate medical accommodations and employees who were hired as remote are different situations.
And let’s not ignore the optics of having plenty of senior leaders working remotely while everyone else is being told proximity to a hub is suddenly so important. Nothing says “consistent policy” quite like leadership being exempt from the rules everyone else is expected to follow.
@ab you have to be kidding with work/life balance. As a remote worker we have to work longer to ensure we have visible productivity so people know we’re not goofing off somewhere. Little ability to take an actual break during the day for fear of going yellow on teams and being judged vs in office people know you’re around. I’ve done both and the grass isn’t greener on either side. Is all dead but different. Maybe if people stopped comparing and actually worked this could be a better environment since MC has created a climate of us vs them everywhere.
honestly we should just go back to all or nothing return to office. pre pandemic we could come and go as we please, work on trains and WFH for bad storms in the winter for days at at time. the tracking is what has become the burden, and you days of office go on your performance directly on workday. are they still even using sapience?
Just to state the obvious some of us don’t even have that option. There’s no office hub nearby, no local branch to walk into, no “commute” to make. If our jobs disappear, they’re just gone. No remote role to fall back on, no paycheck at all.
So when I hear people complain about people working from home — it’s hard not to think about the bigger picture. You still have stability. You still have income. You still have a seat at the table. YOU HAVE AN ACTUAL HUB- while many of us worry of layoff on a daily due to Geographical location*OUR AREA NOT BEING AN IMPORTANT ONE.
So Yes, advocate for yourself. But maybe also take a moment to recognize that in a world so many are scrambling just to find work, or keep a current job —
It really isn’t fair that EVERYONE wasn’t called into an office so they could be monitored like an hourly employee.
Not remote workers fault … but many times they also get to live in more desirable locations, because they are outside of the busy metro hub market. Being locked into an urban setting in order to keep a job su-ks!
Well, that was an interesting piece of toxic misdirection to elicit infighting. Nicely done, but it still sounded somewhat scripted, like a scene from a play.
@ae Raises and bonuses.. neither happened for us either..we were stripped of bonuses a long time ago! Raise? Is it a raise if it evens out the raise of cost for health insurance, gas? Promotion? Not seeing anything like that in office either. Fear of being laid off? I experienced that since the 2nd month I started years ago and it hasn’t left! I can’t believe remote workers think in office workers are being paid any better, or treated any better..it’s all lies!!
The people I work with are a mix of RTO and remote. The remote do the major ar-e kissing as I am sure they think that will save the from losing their jobs. The RTO people don’t give a rats behind about putting in the extra effort and complain about how unfair it is that they have to drag their ar-e into the office whilst the remote don’t have to pay for daycare, gas, etc. There is a lot of resentment between the two groups. No getting around it.
Not that it makes any difference but the people I work with who are remote are in a constant state of concern they are going to lose their jobs.
I am not happy about RTO but I wouldn't be able to function with that hanging over my head.
OP, remote employees were put in a separate bucket for raises last December. Across the board raises were lower in that bucket compared to in office employees. I am positive that will expand to bonuses this year. Remote employees are also stagnated in growth as they cannot receive promotions. So they have their own fair share of problems with the m-o-r-o-n committee without people like you having to make it harder for them.
As others mentioned we need to stick together or the execs are going to tear us apart and send ALL jobs to U. S. Bancorp India Private Limited.
You’re full of it OP. All of US are all dealing with injustices by the hand of MC and GK. If you can’t see it, that’s on you.
I think RTO su-ks period and reduces productivity across the board. Remote workers would fight that fight with you.
Please tell me how horrible being remote is and include your work/life balance… instead of having to adhere to a work schedule of 60% in office or else, reserve a seat where you have to reset your screens, reset your chair, and wipe everything down if wipes are existent ( they aren’t), have to go to horrible buildings where elevators are broke, roofs have caved in and bathrooms are usually flooded, buildings full of mold and smell like trash, and having to spend your money to do it! Please tell me about your remote day though…let’s compare.
How about we not blame remote workers for also being in an impossible situation?
I think we can all agree that being forced to return to office, AND that the way remote workers have been treated are both wrong.
I absolutely refuse to let this place turn me against my peers who also have no control over any of it. You're mad at the wrong people man.
@a2 I am an OG remote worker (not a hybrid who got sent home for Covid) and yes, I was reassigned to office. I hate the in-office mandate more than you. But you're making the worst possible argument here that just makes our side look foolish.
Im not bashing remote workers ..lol.. this is all about the MC and the nonsense of this whole chaotic environment they created and the gross inequality and low morale it has produced. Come on into the office and be subjected to this he-l and you would understand!
I don't understand your point. All-or-nothing RTO su-ks. We should make workforce decisions based on criteria that makes sense, which varies with each job and environment. All or nothing thinking is what got us to this mess in the first place. Are you arguing we should have zero remote work? What are you asking for then?
Or are you just blaming the remaining remote workers for bullcr-p they have nothing to do with, and aren't responsible for? Put the blame where it belongs, on the Mo--n Committee.