What I dislike is the constant push to get people in more and more often. It seems clear that they want everyone in all the time eventually. I can’t even afford that kind of commuting cost since they moved the office over 50 miles away.
The difference is that everyone on my team was hired with the understanding that either they’re local or they’d relocate after the COVID restrictions were lifted, so remote work was a temporary situation. The understanding was always 2 days in office (despite corporate policy being 3 days), and our VP ensured it stayed that way for 4 years. At the end of that, our CEO and VP changed, and we were forced onto the existing 3-day in office corporate policy, and they require that one of those days are Monday or Friday.
IMO, that’s totally acceptable. It’s not like these other companies that advertised full remote and then switched to hybrid or even full in office.
The real problem is the bait and switch. If you’re going to change the terms of the deal, give people a lot of time to adjust. If you’re going to change from full remote to hybrid or full in office, give people multiple months to adjust since they may decide to move.
There is no amount of time that could ever make the bait and switch reasonable, changing a commute from less than 5 miles to well over 50 is not something you can adjust to.
Give us that redundancy payout if you really insist its necessary to come into the office. Then have fun when you have no one left that knows how the product works.
I disagree, I think 6 months is fine, and if the relocation of the office is significantly far away (i.e. your case), then also offer a relocation package. That gives people enough time to find new work, sell their house/lease, etc. Maybe it’s better to offer people their choice of severance or relocation, but I don’t think severance is necessary if they give sufficiently advanced notice.
What I dislike is the constant push to get people in more and more often. It seems clear that they want everyone in all the time eventually. I can’t even afford that kind of commuting cost since they moved the office over 50 miles away.
Yeah, I get that.
The difference is that everyone on my team was hired with the understanding that either they’re local or they’d relocate after the COVID restrictions were lifted, so remote work was a temporary situation. The understanding was always 2 days in office (despite corporate policy being 3 days), and our VP ensured it stayed that way for 4 years. At the end of that, our CEO and VP changed, and we were forced onto the existing 3-day in office corporate policy, and they require that one of those days are Monday or Friday.
IMO, that’s totally acceptable. It’s not like these other companies that advertised full remote and then switched to hybrid or even full in office.
The real problem is the bait and switch. If you’re going to change the terms of the deal, give people a lot of time to adjust. If you’re going to change from full remote to hybrid or full in office, give people multiple months to adjust since they may decide to move.
There is no amount of time that could ever make the bait and switch reasonable, changing a commute from less than 5 miles to well over 50 is not something you can adjust to.
Give us that redundancy payout if you really insist its necessary to come into the office. Then have fun when you have no one left that knows how the product works.
I disagree, I think 6 months is fine, and if the relocation of the office is significantly far away (i.e. your case), then also offer a relocation package. That gives people enough time to find new work, sell their house/lease, etc. Maybe it’s better to offer people their choice of severance or relocation, but I don’t think severance is necessary if they give sufficiently advanced notice.
A company shouldn’t be able to avoid giving out redundancy payouts just by moving the office and saying well you should move.