Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Principal Financial-Remote work

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.
 
MJ29 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
dmclone said:
Who is "our"?
Click to expand...
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
 
shadow said:
Effective immediately is brutal. Many people can't just change everything that quickly especially parents.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Big Daddy Kang, IcSyU, NATEizKING and 9 others
Clonehomer said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: NATEizKING, SCNCY, cycloneG and 1 other person
Rabbuk said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
Fishhead said:
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
Click to expand...
The entire company or just your team? Had your team been abusing the policy and this was the response?
 
cowgirl836 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Clonehomer said:
It can be really hard to fire someone from a corporate job. Especially for poor work. Lots of layers and protocols.
Click to expand...
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
3TrueFans said:
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.
Click to expand...

“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
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom