Principal Financial-Remote work

MJ29

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2020
3,415
7,100
113
I work in the insurance industry and subscribe to some mailing lists. One included an article today stating Nationwide is going to start asking employees who live near one of the campuses to be in the office more often, though the number of days/frequency was not specified.

The article is behind a paywall, otherwise I would share it. But the above is the main point.
 

KnappShack

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2008
23,900
32,265
113
Parts Unknown
I work in the insurance industry and subscribe to some mailing lists. One included an article today stating Nationwide is going to start asking employees who live near one of the campuses to be in the office more often, though the number of days/frequency was not specified.

The article is behind a paywall, otherwise I would share it. But the above is the main point.

Our company had a recent meeting.

Management said we'll continue WFH with purpose. Meaning we could be required to hit the office if necessary.

But then management said it's up to them to convince us it's important enough to actually come in. They will take the responsibility to ensure it's worth it to the employee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wxman1 and MJ29

Fishhead

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
1,696
1,285
113
54
Who is "our"?
Me and the rest of us stationed at the office I work. We were allowed two stay at home days a week though it was loosely managed since no one has bosses stationed here in Minnesota . Now HR will be making sure all are reporting
 

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
26,860
24,998
113
Effective immediately is brutal. Many people can't just change everything that quickly especially parents.

My pushback on that though is if a parent is using a WFH policy to avoid daycare, is that a sign they’re already abusing a WFH policy? I can understand a before or after school situation for elementary aged kids, but I’d think there would be an opportunity to work with your direct boss about a shift of your workday as a temporary solution.

I’ve seen a lot of fellow employees that complained about our return to work because they had their infants and toddlers home all day while they are working. IMO, this is the sort of attitude that is ruining WHF for the larger group.
 

Rabbuk

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2011
56,961
46,117
113
My pushback on that though is if a parent is using a WFH policy to avoid daycare, is that a sign they’re already abusing a WFH policy? I can understand a before or after school situation for elementary aged kids, but I’d think there would be an opportunity to work with your direct boss about a shift of your workday as a temporary solution.

I’ve seen a lot of fellow employees that complained about our return to work because they had their infants and toddlers home all day while they are working. IMO, this is the sort of attitude that is ruining WHF for the larger group.
I mean that's likely true but over the past 4 years if those people had been producing bad work or it was a noticeable distraction for them wouldn't they have been coached out?
 

cowgirl836

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2009
51,464
43,340
113
I mean that's likely true but over the past 4 years if those people had been producing bad work or it was a noticeable distraction for them wouldn't they have been coached out?

Also no one is doing that. It's for before/after school, sick days, etc. Or presence for family member that can't be left alone all day like an aging parent or disabled relative.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: isuno1fan

michaelrr1

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2006
8,229
1,892
113
WDM
Me and the rest of us stationed at the office I work. We were allowed two stay at home days a week though it was loosely managed since no one has bosses stationed here in Minnesota . Now HR will be making sure all are reporting
The entire company or just your team? Had your team been abusing the policy and this was the response?
 

Dopey

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2009
3,263
2,120
113
Also no one is doing that. It's for before/after school, sick days, etc. Or presence for family member that can't be left alone all day like an aging parent or disabled relative.

People were though. And many more were doing daily household tasks while on meetings. Those were the verbatim reasons people were upset at the 4 days in office change at the place I work. They were only proving that their job could be outsourced to India for 1/3 the cost.

If you have a job that can disengage from meetings that much while working remotely, it was obvious that a corporation would find ways to run you off and save that cost.

I don’t love it, but this was clearly the path things were going to head down 4 years ago.

And to be fair, I’ve had zero issues leaving early, staying home multiple days in a row, etc for my kids since this policy change.
 

3TrueFans

Just a Happily Married Man
Sep 10, 2009
63,250
61,946
113
Ames
It can be really hard to fire someone from a corporate job. Especially for poor work. Lots of layers and protocols.
If they had been doing poor work for 4 years they should have plenty of bad reviews and improvement plans by now that firing would be easy. Especially in Iowa where you can just fire someone because you feel like it.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: cowgirl836

Dopey

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2009
3,263
2,120
113
If they had been doing poor work for 4 years they should have plenty of bad reviews and improvement plans by now that firing would be easy. Especially in Iowa where you can just fire someone because you feel like it.

“Poor work” I don’t think is the issue.

Bare minimum work that can be done anywhere is a cost savings project that any corporation was going to go after.

Firing someone who is technically meeting expectations is tough. Forcing a policy on them that you hope they hate and quit is a different story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wxman1