Epic FU money stories

[BuffaloStache]

Oooh, I hadn't heard the term "Seagull Manager" before! But I have certainly encountered a few of them!
...

...
Don't be an ass and hang around for that, get FIRE'd.
...

Both of these are awesome.

There is a Peter Principle & Seagull Manager Boss at my company, who has now risen to the rank of Senior Director. He was my direct boss when I first hired in several years ago, and I've done everything I can since then to stay as far away from him as possible. For most of my first ~year with the company, he would call me into his office on a monthly basis with little warning (sending a meeting notice <18 hrs in advance with one word titles like "Status"!), and then proceed to sternly talk/yell at me for most of our hour-long meeting. During these "sessions" there were no threats of disciplinary action or anything, since I continuously got all of my work done and even received nominations for performance awards submitted by other managers. At first I thought it was just me, but when I started asking around my coworkers and I realized that he did it to lots of people, and that he saw this as his "management style". I generally like my company and think the working environment is pretty good, outside of this one person.

Awkwardly he's had 3 promotions since then, and I've been fortunate that my own promotions have been timed to keep at least one level of management between him and me. He's getting a little older now, but I think it would be awesome to hit FIRE before/at the time he retires. I don't want to be an Ass walking on a mill any longer than I have to be!

[talltexan]

I would like to think that incompetent managers in the workplace would be incompetent in managing their personal business as well, but that may just be me hoping that my Mustachian values align with competence in general.

Someone could well have serious misunderstandings about their professional world, or perhaps have a mercenary approach to extracting whatever income they can through their labor and be managing it very well in their private life. Hopefully such people would do us worker bees a favor and retire as soon as their finances permit.

[Tyson]

I would like to think that incompetent managers in the workplace would be incompetent in managing their personal business as well, but that may just be me hoping that my Mustachian values align with competence in general.

Someone could well have serious misunderstandings about their professional world, or perhaps have a mercenary approach to extracting whatever income they can through their labor and be managing it very well in their private life. Hopefully such people would do us worker bees a favor and retire as soon as their finances permit.

I think many of them enjoy the power and would do the work for the sense of control over other people that it gives them.  In those cases, they definitely won't be retiring early.

[rantk81]

Potentially have a FU story brewing!

I'm essentially FI, but wouldn't mind continuing to pad the 'stache a little more, especially since we seem to be getting a market pullback / recession.

I started a new job in July 2020 and was on-boarded completely remotely, and worked fully remotely the entire time.
In less than 2 years after my hire date, I had been promoted.  My managers are extremely happy with my work, my teammates have come to depend on me, and our team works on a highly successful "thing" that is profitable to the company at-large.  Our team has been described as "extremely lean" and gets a much higher ROI for the number of people working on our team per profit, when compared to most other teams in the company.  Each team works pretty much independently/silo'd and is evaluated mostly on their own "thing's" performance.  That company is (was?) a fantastic place to work.  They demanded a high level of performance, but in return, they treated their employees _extremely_ well.  My direct managers and teammates are fantastic.

Last year, the company got acquired by a larger company.  Larger company promised they would let the individual teams pretty much have autonomy and continue to run per usual.  Well, that seems to have been a lie.  The Boomer-CEO of the larger company couldn't help but let his "asses in office seats" mentality shine through.  This week we received an email informing us that: Starting May 1, there is a new mandatory edict that every employee within a 90-minute (one way) commute of an office is required to be present in the office for two days per week.  It has been communicated that the "90 minute" metric is to be considered via automobile, and would not consider what the commute time is for people who would use public transportation.

Well, in my particular situation, I do not own a car, but I fall within the 90 minute range.  I could theoretically take public transportation (for over an hour each way) on a really dirty and unsafe inner-city train, to get to an office.  But it gets better!  For this particular office location, NONE of the other members of my team who I interact with on a regular basis would be present in this physical office.  They live across the country.  Per the communication from the company at large, they are telling employees that "it doesn't matter if you don't have any immediate co-workers in the same office -- we're doing this to facilitate company culture!"

Yeah.. a culture of resentment.

I told my immediate boss that I would not be commuting to the office.  My boss told me that I could ask for an exemption.  But the icing on the cake is, your manager-chain does not have discretion to approve exemptions.  We have to submit paperwork and HR has the final say on whether the "reason" for an exemption is valid or not.  From the way the communication has been structured, it is very obvious that they probably intend on denying most all requests for exemption, unless they are based on a protected class such as a disability.

In any case, I sent a terse email to HR requesting a copy of the exemption form, and will submit.  If it is not approved, I will continue to work from home doing my best work.  If the company at large decides to "police" the mandatory in-office policy, they can terminate me against my boss's wishes.

But all in all, this has really soured me on this company -- that, up until now, had been excellent in every way.

But I'm not wasting 4+ hours a week on a disgusting and unsafe train, so that I can go to an office where I still have to make zoom calls to talk to all my teammates. Fuck that.

[ATtiny85]

Ouch, that sucks (that the company going from good to bad to maybe worse).

It is such an easy argument one would think. You have been only remote since you started. Either you have performed good in that time or not. If you have performed, then there is no reason for the mandate to apply to you. If you have not performed, why have they let you stick around? Either way, it is bad bad management. And given your team's composition, it is really bizarre.

Good luck! Whichever way it goes, I hope you land softly.

[AlanStache]

rantk81 - It might be a fun game to see if you can get a company car out of this.  See just how stupid they are willing to go on in office work  :-p 

90min car commute is not something anyone should have to put up with.  I have gone from 10min to 30-60 depending, after selling my house, soon I will buy a new condo and be near 100% wfh.  I am sure many people drive from where I will be to where I work but I will not be one of them.  I could see management trying to back peddle on my approval to wfh or insist on some hybrid but no, I too have FU money and will not sell my time at 0$/hr to commute.

[midweststache]

rantk81 - It might be a fun game to see if you can get a company car out of this.  See just how stupid they are willing to go on in office work  :-p 

90min car commute is not something anyone should have to put up with.  I have gone from 10min to 30-60 depending, after selling my house, soon I will buy a new condo and be near 100% wfh.  I am sure many people drive from where I will be to where I work but I will not be one of them.  I could see management trying to back peddle on my approval to wfh or insist on some hybrid but no, I too have FU money and will not sell my time at 0$/hr to commute.

As someone who lives in a Chicago suburb and works downtown once a week (a hybrid schedule and work environment is really great for me, my colleagues and our work), you could absolutely not pay me enough to deal with downtown Chicago traffic. I feel comfortable on my train line - rantk81 may be on a different line so YMMV - but the second I had to drive downtown would be the second I "NOPED" right out of whatever that situation was. Aside from associated fiscal costs (car upkeep, parking, etc.) there's also the time costs (comparable or even longer than public transit, in my case) and the emotional cost (my threshold for idiots behind the wheel has significantly decreased living in a city with public transit).

I really hope you get approved rantk81; forced in-office work for high performers - ESPECIALLY since the rest of your team isn't coming in - is dumb. So dumb. (But if this is the hill your company wants to die on, that probably tells you something about their long-term priorities and your alignment with this new 'company culture', right?)

[rantk81]

feel comfortable on my train line - rantk81 may be on a different line so YMMV

I really hope you get approved rantk81; forced in-office work for high performers - ESPECIALLY since the rest of your team isn't coming in - is dumb. So dumb. (But if this is the hill your company wants to die on, that probably tells you something about their long-term priorities and your alignment with this new 'company culture', right?)

Yep.  For the record, it would involve taking the blue line for almost the entire extent of the line.  I'm not going to be forced into spending an hour each way on a mobile homeless-shelter/bathroom/open-air-drug-seller-market.  The only worse line is the red one.

So it wouldn't be on a "luxurious" (by comparison ;) ) metra line.

[TomTX]

I really hope you get approved rantk81; forced in-office work for high performers - ESPECIALLY since the rest of your team isn't coming in - is dumb. So dumb. (But if this is the hill your company wants to die on, that probably tells you something about their long-term priorities and your alignment with this new 'company culture', right?)

My office is even dumber. They could have a weekly team day where the whole team comes in since we're all reasonably local - and I see some value in that.

Nope. Instead they want "coverage" - meaning scattering the team across the week. I might see 1 other person on my team on my assigned day while enduring a much worse work environment. I really can't focus well in the sterile, vast, open-office wasteland. Literally nobody ever "drops by" in person.

I just said fuck it and work remotely unless I have a reason to go in - which means I go in maybe twice a month, and it's never been on my assigned day.

[charis]

feel comfortable on my train line - rantk81 may be on a different line so YMMV

I really hope you get approved rantk81; forced in-office work for high performers - ESPECIALLY since the rest of your team isn't coming in - is dumb. So dumb. (But if this is the hill your company wants to die on, that probably tells you something about their long-term priorities and your alignment with this new 'company culture', right?)

Yep.  For the record, it would involve taking the blue line for almost the entire extent of the line.  I'm not going to be forced into spending an hour each way on a mobile homeless-shelter/bathroom/open-air-drug-seller-market.  The only worse line is the red one.

So it wouldn't be on a "luxurious" (by comparison ;) ) metra line.

Were your coworkers hired as remote workers, or were they in-office employees who went remote during the pandemic?  It seems like you personally should not need an exemption because you were hired as a teleworker.  It they start demanding you to come in, is that part of your contract?

[rantk81]

Were your coworkers hired as remote workers, or were they in-office employees who went remote during the pandemic?  It seems like you personally should not need an exemption because you were hired as a teleworker.  It they start demanding you to come in, is that part of your contract?

A lot of my coworkers worked in an office pre-pandemic (in some other cites around the world.)  Several others were on boarded during/after the pandemic too.  There is no "contract" for employment... it's "at will" salaried position.

[Gronnie]

feel comfortable on my train line - rantk81 may be on a different line so YMMV

I really hope you get approved rantk81; forced in-office work for high performers - ESPECIALLY since the rest of your team isn't coming in - is dumb. So dumb. (But if this is the hill your company wants to die on, that probably tells you something about their long-term priorities and your alignment with this new 'company culture', right?)

Yep.  For the record, it would involve taking the blue line for almost the entire extent of the line.  I'm not going to be forced into spending an hour each way on a mobile homeless-shelter/bathroom/open-air-drug-seller-market.  The only worse line is the red one.

So it wouldn't be on a "luxurious" (by comparison ;) ) metra line.

Were your coworkers hired as remote workers, or were they in-office employees who went remote during the pandemic?  It seems like you personally should not need an exemption because you were hired as a teleworker.  It they start demanding you to come in, is that part of your contract?

This is the US. Unless OP is a SVP or higher, there almost certainly is no contract.

[mm1970]

I told my immediate boss that I would not be commuting to the office.  My boss told me that I could ask for an exemption.  But the icing on the cake is, your manager-chain does not have discretion to approve exemptions.  We have to submit paperwork and HR has the final say on whether the "reason" for an exemption is valid or not.  From the way the communication has been structured, it is very obvious that they probably intend on denying most all requests for exemption, unless they are based on a protected class such as a disability.

Wow, this is crazy that this topic came up at my office too this week.  Firstly, my opinion would be to just ignore it.  I mean, don't apply for an exemption, just do what you are going to do and wait.

I know, I know, many of us really want specific, known rules.  When COVID first hit and everyone was home, our management started "requiring", or "we are going to require people to come in 3x a week starting X date", several times (but then there would be a surge and that date came and went).  A few of my coworkers complained to me about it, and I just said "oh, I'm ignoring that".  "But shouldn't we really fight back??"  Well, maybe, but I 100% know they aren't going to fire me, so I just ignored them.

Anyhoo, this week I was in a meeting for managers, and one topic from upper mgt was "how do we get our people in the office, to facilitate culture, interaction, etc."  They looked to ME partially to help set the tone, which is funny.  For shit's sake, every single person who reports to me (and by the way, it's a dotted line report, not direct report) is in another country entirely, across the ocean.  *I* know that most of the folks in 1 country are at the office every single day and the other guy WFH every day, because the office there is really small and there's no space.

The complaint was that mgt thinks workers just don't like any rule, much less a specific rule.  This is true, so deal with it.  YES even though my reports aren't near me, I get a lot out of being with my coworkers, because I'm the hub of everything and people ask me questions and I ask them questions, and being at the office is amazing.  3x a week is my sweet spot, sometimes 2.

But everyone else is not me.  I'm working from home in my jammies today, 'cuz it's Friday and it's raining and I can really get shit done without distractions.  Last week I WFH the entire week because of sick family members.  We have people in multiple countries and states, and some local people have moved away and kept their jobs.  We are  hiring people who live elsewhere and just work remotely, so the whole trying to have a rule for those of us who live nearby is really kinda funny and stupid.

[LennStar]

This is the US. Unless OP is a SVP or higher, there almost certainly is no contract.

Oh, wait, what? What are you meaning with that?
You can't mean someone is working months or even years for a company and there is nothing written down?

[SweetTPi]

feel comfortable on my train line - rantk81 may be on a different line so YMMV

I really hope you get approved rantk81; forced in-office work for high performers - ESPECIALLY since the rest of your team isn't coming in - is dumb. So dumb. (But if this is the hill your company wants to die on, that probably tells you something about their long-term priorities and your alignment with this new 'company culture', right?)

Yep.  For the record, it would involve taking the blue line for almost the entire extent of the line.  I'm not going to be forced into spending an hour each way on a mobile homeless-shelter/bathroom/open-air-drug-seller-market.  The only worse line is the red one.

So it wouldn't be on a "luxurious" (by comparison ;) ) metra line.

Hmm, propose that the company arrange and pay for a car service, picking you up at home no earlier than 8a and dropping you off at home no later than 5p (or whatever work hours are)?  They can waste their own time and money if they care so much.  After all, one can argue that your work station is your home since you still work the majority of the time from there (60%), and any travel required from there should be company-covered work travel. 

[bmjohnson35]

This is the US. Unless OP is a SVP or higher, there almost certainly is no contract.

Oh, wait, what? What are you meaning with that?
You can't mean someone is working months or even years for a company and there is nothing written down?

Yup. It's not uncommon in the US.  US employees often have to sign a lot of documents protecting the company, but your own protection is left to labor laws and not a contractual agreement.  It varies state to state. If you work in an at-will state, it means they can let you go very easily, with little reason.

[bmjohnson35]

rantk81 - If you are truly prepared to leave, I second the recommendation to simply ignore the request. It's not what I would have done when I was working.  I would have likely went to HR as well with a passionate email and/or phone call. Now that I have been retired for a few years, I realize I could have handled foolishness like this better when I was working. If all your co-workers are in a different state, would they even know you disregarded it?  If they do, would they really fire you?  If they call you out, you could casually explain how you didn't think it applied to your situation and calmly provide your logiocal explanation.

[rantk81]

rantk81 - If you are truly prepared to leave, I second the recommendation to simply ignore the request. It's not what I would have done when I was working.  I would have likely went to HR as well with a passionate email and/or phone call. Now that I have been retired for a few years, I realize I could have handled foolishness like this better when I was working. If all your co-workers are in a different state, would they even know you disregarded it?  If they do, would they really fire you?  If they call you out, you could casually explain how you didn't think it applied to your situation and calmly provide your logiocal explanation.

I am 100% totally prepared to walk, if this doesn't go my way.  But yeah, it is probably decent advice to just ignore it.  However, I can't really "play dumb" and pretend like I didn't know that it would apply to me.  We have an official designation in one of the "employee management tools" which classifies us as Onsite, Offsite, or Connected.  "Connected" folks are expected to adhere to the 2+ day rule.  They are also proactively automatically changing employee's classifications from "Offsite" (which I currently am/was) to "Connected" if you live within their radius.  I'm assuming this is what is/will happen to me.  I'm sure they will force us to click some button in that "employee management tool" software in order to acknowledge this, as how it was handled a long time ago when I originally was classified as "Offsite."

[charis]

This is the US. Unless OP is a SVP or higher, there almost certainly is no contract.

Oh, wait, what? What are you meaning with that?
You can't mean someone is working months or even years for a company and there is nothing written down?

Yup. It's not uncommon in the US.  US employees often have to sign a lot of documents protecting the company, but your own protection is left to labor laws and not a contractual agreement.  It varies state to state. If you work in an at-will state, it means they can let you go very easily, with little reason.

I'm in the US and I've never had a job that didn't involve some type of contract or signed offer.  I'm not saying the OP isn't an at will employee.  What I'm suggesting, the same as someone, is that the OP ignore the new policy and not apply for an exemption.  It's not playing dumb.  If I am hired for a job as a "off site" employee, that is my expectation for my role.  That the OP was hired in 2020 should not change that unless it was understood that this arrangement was temporary or subject to change in light of the pandemic. Practically speaking, employers will do what they want, so that's where FU money comes into play.

[rantk81]

I'm in the US and I've never had a job that didn't involve some type of contract or signed offer.  I'm not saying the OP isn't an at will employee.  What I'm suggesting, the same as someone, is that the OP ignore the new policy and not apply for an exemption.  It's not playing dumb.  If I am hired for a job as a "off site" employee, that is my expectation for my role.  That the OP was hired in 2020 should not change that unless it was understood that this arrangement was temporary or subject to change in light of the pandemic. Practically speaking, employers will do what they want, so that's where FU money comes into play.

Oh yeah, there's a lot of paperwork you sign when you get hired.  But every single piece of it is usually one-sided to protect all the rights of the employer, and restrict as much (to the extent possible or legally) the new employee.  Non-disclosures, non-competes, at-will, etc.

[charis]

I'm in the US and I've never had a job that didn't involve some type of contract or signed offer.  I'm not saying the OP isn't an at will employee.  What I'm suggesting, the same as someone, is that the OP ignore the new policy and not apply for an exemption.  It's not playing dumb.  If I am hired for a job as a "off site" employee, that is my expectation for my role.  That the OP was hired in 2020 should not change that unless it was understood that this arrangement was temporary or subject to change in light of the pandemic. Practically speaking, employers will do what they want, so that's where FU money comes into play.

Oh yeah, there's a lot of paperwork you sign when you get hired.  But every single piece of it is usually one-sided to protect all the rights of the employer, and restrict as much (to the extent possible or legally) the new employee.  Non-disclosures, non-competes, at-will, etc.

My point was not about being protected, as I said.  It was about the parameters/nature/description of the position and whether it's defensible to claim that the policy does not apply to you because you were hired as a teleworker.

[SpaceCow]

feel comfortable on my train line - rantk81 may be on a different line so YMMV

I really hope you get approved rantk81; forced in-office work for high performers - ESPECIALLY since the rest of your team isn't coming in - is dumb. So dumb. (But if this is the hill your company wants to die on, that probably tells you something about their long-term priorities and your alignment with this new 'company culture', right?)

Yep.  For the record, it would involve taking the blue line for almost the entire extent of the line.  I'm not going to be forced into spending an hour each way on a mobile homeless-shelter/bathroom/open-air-drug-seller-market.  The only worse line is the red one.

So it wouldn't be on a "luxurious" (by comparison ;) ) metra line.

It's too bad that the CTA can't get their act together on policing the L system. As a Detroit Metro area resident, the L looks like a crown jewel, but I do understand not wanting to spend that much time on the blue line.

I spend 1.5 hours on the bus each way for my two mandatory in-office days. It's not fun.

[jinga nation]

Management feels powerless when the minions are comfortable AND productive working remotely.
Management: why are they happy working in PJs but I have to don office wear and be lonely? I'll force everyone to join my misery.

Seems like a stupid power play that creates employee resentment, chaos, and reduces productivity.
Obviously, since management doesn't do real work, doesn't understand "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

If I were @rantk81 , I'd be looking for a new gig, or planning for some flavor of FIRE.

[LennStar]

Yup. It's not uncommon in the US.  US employees often have to sign a lot of documents protecting the company, but your own protection is left to labor laws and not a contractual agreement.  It varies state to state. If you work in an at-will state, it means they can let you go very easily, with little reason.

Oh yeah, there's a lot of paperwork you sign when you get hired.  But every single piece of it is usually one-sided to protect all the rights of the employer, and restrict as much (to the extent possible or legally) the new employee.  Non-disclosures, non-competes, at-will, etc.

So, if they decide today that you only get minimum wage from the third of Marhc on, that's it?
How does the state know that they pay the approprioate taxes and social....  ah, okay, forget that, companies don't do that in the US.

[AlanStache]

...

So, if they decide today that you only get minimum wage from the third of Marhc on, that's it?
How does the state know that they pay the approprioate taxes and social....  ah, okay, forget that, companies don't do that in the US.

You have seen the recent stories about some states opening up the mining and animal slaughter industries to children labor?

In many ways the US is actually 14 squirrels in a trench coat pretending to be a modern democracy. 

To the best of my knowledge I could be fired right now with no reason provided and given basically pay earned to date, and 30 minutes to clean out my work area.   

[grantmeaname]

You think that in Germany the state knows that the correct payroll taxes are being withheld because it looks at the contract between the employer and the employee?

[LennStar]

You think that in Germany the state knows that the correct payroll taxes are being withheld because it looks at the contract between the employer and the employee?

The state does not look at all contracts all the time.
However they must be kept of course. And if the amount payed is different from the amount stated, that is illegal. And of course the state knows what taxes and contributions it gets. (btw. the company has to pay them at the middle of the month already for the whole month).
So if the company does not pay you enough, you have a contract that states your salary, a bank statement that says how much you got and a tax record how much taxes were paid, which means you can calculate the officially paid sum.

You have seen the recent stories about some states opening up the mining and animal slaughter industries to children labor?

No, that didn't make the tour across the ocean and through my filters. On the other hand this week there was a "I want more enthusiasm for work" story here from a big employer that complained about people no longer wanting to work their ass off which, not least because of the tone, got a little shitstorm. It's the same everywhere, isn't it?

To the best of my knowledge I could be fired right now with no reason provided and given basically pay earned to date, and 30 minutes to clean out my work area.

Yeah, I knew that existed. But I was asking about the pay for the work you already did. Without contract, how can anybody prove if you got the right amount or too much or too less?

[Michael in ABQ]

This is the US. Unless OP is a SVP or higher, there almost certainly is no contract.

Oh, wait, what? What are you meaning with that?
You can't mean someone is working months or even years for a company and there is nothing written down?

I'm a business owner. Here's how the conversation went with the last employee I hired.

"would you like a job doing x, y, and z?"
"yes"
"how does $X per hour sound"
"sounds good"
"ok, you'll start on Monday"

The only paperwork she filled out was enough information to put her on payroll. Name, address, date of birth, social security number, and bank account information for direct deposit.


When I worked for a large corporation, I believe there was an offer letter that outlined some basic information (job title, pay, etc.). When I got a promotion and a new title and higher pay I think there was another one. That was about it. I could quit at anytime and they could fire me at anytime.

When I worked for the federal government, I would basically have to murder my boss in front of witnesses in order to be fired. If you were a terrible employee but knew how to play the system, it could take months to actually build up enough of a paper trail to fire you - and then you could always try to appeal.

[kenner]

To the best of my knowledge I could be fired right now with no reason provided and given basically pay earned to date, and 30 minutes to clean out my work area.

Yeah, I knew that existed. But I was asking about the pay for the work you already did. Without contract, how can anybody prove if you got the right amount or too much or too less?

You don't need a contract for that, you just need your pay/offer letter (which presumably was received prior to accepting a job--verbal offers are a thing, but 'get it in writing' is pretty basic advice).  For standard employment/non-contractor type jobs, the government is going to learn all about how much you get paid when you fill out your employment paperwork too since the employer has taxes to pay on it.  And no, companies in the US can't cut salaries retroactively without falling afoul of labor laws--
https://www.askamanager.org/2020/04/our-employer-wants-to-cut-our-pay-retroactively.html

You could end up with a case where someone accepts a verbal offer, ignores the payroll paperwork they fill out, and then finds out the first time they get paid that they've got a problem, but at least after that first paycheck you've got a paper trail, too.

[former player]

To the best of my knowledge I could be fired right now with no reason provided and given basically pay earned to date, and 30 minutes to clean out my work area.

Yeah, I knew that existed. But I was asking about the pay for the work you already did. Without contract, how can anybody prove if you got the right amount or too much or too less?

You don't need a contract for that, you just need your pay/offer letter (which presumably was received prior to accepting a job--verbal offers are a thing, but 'get it in writing' is pretty basic advice).  For standard employment/non-contractor type jobs, the government is going to learn all about how much you get paid when you fill out your employment paperwork too since the employer has taxes to pay on it.  And no, companies in the US can't cut salaries retroactively without falling afoul of labor laws--
https://www.askamanager.org/2020/04/our-employer-wants-to-cut-our-pay-retroactively.html

You could end up with a case where someone accepts a verbal offer, ignores the payroll paperwork they fill out, and then finds out the first time they get paid that they've got a problem, but at least after that first paycheck you've got a paper trail, too.

Just to clarify:

1.  A pay/offer letter creates a contractual obligation as soon as it is accepted by the employee.  That letter is the employee's contract.
2.  A verbal offer also creates a contractual obligation as soon as it is accepted by the employee.  A contract does not have to be in writing, it is just easier to prove its existence and terms if it is.

So yes, all USA employees are employed under a contract, whether they think they are or not.

[Captain FIRE]

Just FYI, at my husband's office they just docked bonuses of people who were egregious about not coming back in person 20%. (Expectation is to return 3/day a week, he thinks these were people who came back maybe less than 1 day a week.) Their manager's bonus was also docked 20%. He believes that next year they'll move the needle and dock people who are back less than 50% time. So you can play dumb, but they can dock your bonus. Unfortunately, even if you were hired as a remote employee, they can change the terms and require you to come in person or you're fired.

How is your manager? Would a frank conversation with them be helpful, asking them if you need to get another offer in order to get changed back to remote (in which case, you are likely to just take the other offer)? How much do you like your job?

[rantk81]

How is your manager? Would a frank conversation with them be helpful, asking them if you need to get another offer in order to get changed back to remote (in which case, you are likely to just take the other offer)? How much do you like your job?

My manager, manager's manager, and manager's manager's manager are all excellent.  Unfortunately, the decision to grant an exemption does not fall upon them.  It is HR's final decision.  I told my direct manager that I would not be commuting the the office on a regular basis, however, I would make exceptions if there were special circumstances if someone special was visiting the office from out of town, or if we were on-boarding someone who needed my direct help for a few days.  My manager and manager's manager are apparently currently advocating for me with HR I think... although I haven't actually filled out any of the official forms myself. Heh.

If they magically make this whole thing go away, and I am able to continue per normal, I owe both of them a beer :) 

I do really enjoy my job and all of the people who I directly work with.  I'm not sure I like the job enough to endure one of the worst train lines on Chicago public transportation at rush hour several times a week.

[iluvzbeach]

After all the work changes during and after Covid, where it seemed like employees were gaining the upper hand between WFH, huge salary increases from jumping employers and the great resignation, I have wondered if some of this layoff and return to office business is about employers trying to regain the upper hand.  Like, did they feel things were getting too lopsided and employees were gaining too much control, so let's right that ship and start making them be fearful of losing their jobs?  I know it's more complex than that, especially with questions about a recession and overall profitability, but I still wonder if some of this plays a part in what they are doing.

I'm FIRE now but if I was still working, there is zero chance I'd return to the office. 

[Zamboni]

<Comment about the 14 stacked squirrels in a trenchcoat>

My soda came up out of my nose when I laughed at that one!

I think it irks the upper management that they have all of these empty buildings sitting around. Instead of doing something reasonable and DIVESTING themselves of these depreciating assets, perhaps by selling them to be converted into condos or apartments or something that is ACTUALLY needed right now, they make a stupid power play and tell people who should be working remotely that they have to come to this useless building that they own and refuse to sell off (or, even worse, useless building that they are renting!)

Although, if we are talking about Detroit here, it's very possible they would have to sell it at a loss. They should still sell it, though, and use the fund for something else if people can do their jobs without being there.

[SwordGuy]

You have seen the recent stories about some states opening up the mining and animal slaughter industries to children labor?

My soda came up out of my nose when I laughed at that one!

I hope you were laughing at the next sentence AlanStache wrote, the one you forgot to quote.

Because there's not a damn thing funny about the sentence you quoted.

[Zamboni]

Oh wow, yes, I suck at editing. Whoops! It was the squirrels in the trenchcoat comment.

[AlanStache]

Oh wow, yes, I suck at editing. Whoops! It was the squirrels in the trenchcoat comment.

Glad it was the squirrels.  I had to reread the line above it 10 times to make sure I did not make some funny writing error.

[SwordGuy]

Oh wow, yes, I suck at editing. Whoops! It was the squirrels in the trenchcoat comment.

I went looking for a possible editing mistake because that comment just didn't sound like you at all!

Thought that was it and figured you wouldn't want people to get the wrong impression about you!

[Zamboni]

Thanks, yeah, I tried to fix it now.

[Sandi_k]

rantk81 - If you are truly prepared to leave, I second the recommendation to simply ignore the request. It's not what I would have done when I was working.  I would have likely went to HR as well with a passionate email and/or phone call. Now that I have been retired for a few years, I realize I could have handled foolishness like this better when I was working. If all your co-workers are in a different state, would they even know you disregarded it?  If they do, would they really fire you?  If they call you out, you could casually explain how you didn't think it applied to your situation and calmly provide your logiocal explanation.

I am 100% totally prepared to walk, if this doesn't go my way.  But yeah, it is probably decent advice to just ignore it.  However, I can't really "play dumb" and pretend like I didn't know that it would apply to me.  We have an official designation in one of the "employee management tools" which classifies us as Onsite, Offsite, or Connected.  "Connected" folks are expected to adhere to the 2+ day rule.  They are also proactively automatically changing employee's classifications from "Offsite" (which I currently am/was) to "Connected" if you live within their radius.  I'm assuming this is what is/will happen to me.  I'm sure they will force us to click some button in that "employee management tool" software in order to acknowledge this, as how it was handled a long time ago when I originally was classified as "Offsite."

Do you have a family member outside the Zone of Commuting, whose address you could use for those purposes? Then file a change of address with work, and you're done.

[Dicey]

Do you have a family member outside the Zone of Commuting, whose address you could use for those purposes? Then file a change of address with work, and you're done.

Heh, you beat me to it.

[rantk81]

Do you have a family member outside the Zone of Commuting, whose address you could use for those purposes? Then file a change of address with work, and you're done.

Not in the current state where I live.

[zolotiyeruki]

If it is HR that is setting the policy, how are they supposed to find out if someone isn't coming to the office?   Do they have someone walking around the office every day, taking attendance?  Some IT system that detects if your laptop connects to the network?  A network of spies?  If your management chain doesn't report anything, how would HR know?

[grantmeaname]

It's often collected from badge swipes, or from your PC's network telemetry if not

[SwordGuy]

Do you have a family member outside the Zone of Commuting, whose address you could use for those purposes? Then file a change of address with work, and you're done.

Not in the current state where I live.

I used a friend's address because they had 2 different insurance policies, depending on your zip code.  Mine sucked.  Did that for a year until they dropped the shitty policy.

[alcon835]

Potentially have a FU story brewing!

I'm essentially FI, but wouldn't mind continuing to pad the 'stache a little more, especially since we seem to be getting a market pullback / recession.

I started a new job in July 2020 and was on-boarded completely remotely, and worked fully remotely the entire time.
In less than 2 years after my hire date, I had been promoted.  My managers are extremely happy with my work, my teammates have come to depend on me, and our team works on a highly successful "thing" that is profitable to the company at-large.  Our team has been described as "extremely lean" and gets a much higher ROI for the number of people working on our team per profit, when compared to most other teams in the company.  Each team works pretty much independently/silo'd and is evaluated mostly on their own "thing's" performance.  That company is (was?) a fantastic place to work.  They demanded a high level of performance, but in return, they treated their employees _extremely_ well.  My direct managers and teammates are fantastic.

Last year, the company got acquired by a larger company.  Larger company promised they would let the individual teams pretty much have autonomy and continue to run per usual.  Well, that seems to have been a lie.  The Boomer-CEO of the larger company couldn't help but let his "asses in office seats" mentality shine through.  This week we received an email informing us that: Starting May 1, there is a new mandatory edict that every employee within a 90-minute (one way) commute of an office is required to be present in the office for two days per week.  It has been communicated that the "90 minute" metric is to be considered via automobile, and would not consider what the commute time is for people who would use public transportation.

Well, in my particular situation, I do not own a car, but I fall within the 90 minute range.  I could theoretically take public transportation (for over an hour each way) on a really dirty and unsafe inner-city train, to get to an office.  But it gets better!  For this particular office location, NONE of the other members of my team who I interact with on a regular basis would be present in this physical office.  They live across the country.  Per the communication from the company at large, they are telling employees that "it doesn't matter if you don't have any immediate co-workers in the same office -- we're doing this to facilitate company culture!"

Yeah.. a culture of resentment.

I told my immediate boss that I would not be commuting to the office.  My boss told me that I could ask for an exemption.  But the icing on the cake is, your manager-chain does not have discretion to approve exemptions.  We have to submit paperwork and HR has the final say on whether the "reason" for an exemption is valid or not.  From the way the communication has been structured, it is very obvious that they probably intend on denying most all requests for exemption, unless they are based on a protected class such as a disability.

In any case, I sent a terse email to HR requesting a copy of the exemption form, and will submit.  If it is not approved, I will continue to work from home doing my best work.  If the company at large decides to "police" the mandatory in-office policy, they can terminate me against my boss's wishes.

But all in all, this has really soured me on this company -- that, up until now, had been excellent in every way.

But I'm not wasting 4+ hours a week on a disgusting and unsafe train, so that I can go to an office where I still have to make zoom calls to talk to all my teammates. Fuck that.

A lot companies are doing this over the past 12 months to get rid of high cost employees without layoffs. The people most likely to quit are the ones with the highest pay and most options (who are the most likely to leave anyway). Those who refuse to adhere to the policy can be fired for cause and the company may be able to avoid unemployment claims. Facebook, Google, Twitter, and many, many more tech companies did this last year as the economy started shaking. It's another lever they can pull to raise share price by lowering expenses.

In most cases, the lost revenue/productivity from the leaving employees are not high enough to make a difference and exceptions can be made for truly outstanding employees or those in the "good ole boys" club.

Everyone is replaceable (not always at the level they were producing, but often at a level that is acceptable to keep things going well enough). This is why FU money is so important. At the end of the day, the organization as a whole doesn't really care about you. They will pull whatever lever they need for the decisions makers to be successful and happy. If your happiness and success coincides with their goals, you'll do well. If it doesn't, well, good luck to you.

[scottish]

Everyone is replaceable (not always at the level they were producing, but often at a level that is acceptable to keep things going well enough). This is why FU money is so important. At the end of the day, the organization as a whole doesn't really car about you. They will pull whatever lever they need for the decisions makers to be successful and happy. If your happiness and success coincides with their goals, you'll do well. If it doesn't, well, good luck to you.

That's certainly how executives think.    They generally don't realize Price's law applies to them just as it does to all the peons who work for them.

[Gronnie]

Potentially have a FU story brewing!

I'm essentially FI, but wouldn't mind continuing to pad the 'stache a little more, especially since we seem to be getting a market pullback / recession.

I started a new job in July 2020 and was on-boarded completely remotely, and worked fully remotely the entire time.
In less than 2 years after my hire date, I had been promoted.  My managers are extremely happy with my work, my teammates have come to depend on me, and our team works on a highly successful "thing" that is profitable to the company at-large.  Our team has been described as "extremely lean" and gets a much higher ROI for the number of people working on our team per profit, when compared to most other teams in the company.  Each team works pretty much independently/silo'd and is evaluated mostly on their own "thing's" performance.  That company is (was?) a fantastic place to work.  They demanded a high level of performance, but in return, they treated their employees _extremely_ well.  My direct managers and teammates are fantastic.

Last year, the company got acquired by a larger company.  Larger company promised they would let the individual teams pretty much have autonomy and continue to run per usual.  Well, that seems to have been a lie.  The Boomer-CEO of the larger company couldn't help but let his "asses in office seats" mentality shine through.  This week we received an email informing us that: Starting May 1, there is a new mandatory edict that every employee within a 90-minute (one way) commute of an office is required to be present in the office for two days per week.  It has been communicated that the "90 minute" metric is to be considered via automobile, and would not consider what the commute time is for people who would use public transportation.

Well, in my particular situation, I do not own a car, but I fall within the 90 minute range.  I could theoretically take public transportation (for over an hour each way) on a really dirty and unsafe inner-city train, to get to an office.  But it gets better!  For this particular office location, NONE of the other members of my team who I interact with on a regular basis would be present in this physical office.  They live across the country.  Per the communication from the company at large, they are telling employees that "it doesn't matter if you don't have any immediate co-workers in the same office -- we're doing this to facilitate company culture!"

Yeah.. a culture of resentment.

I told my immediate boss that I would not be commuting to the office.  My boss told me that I could ask for an exemption.  But the icing on the cake is, your manager-chain does not have discretion to approve exemptions.  We have to submit paperwork and HR has the final say on whether the "reason" for an exemption is valid or not.  From the way the communication has been structured, it is very obvious that they probably intend on denying most all requests for exemption, unless they are based on a protected class such as a disability.

In any case, I sent a terse email to HR requesting a copy of the exemption form, and will submit.  If it is not approved, I will continue to work from home doing my best work.  If the company at large decides to "police" the mandatory in-office policy, they can terminate me against my boss's wishes.

But all in all, this has really soured me on this company -- that, up until now, had been excellent in every way.

But I'm not wasting 4+ hours a week on a disgusting and unsafe train, so that I can go to an office where I still have to make zoom calls to talk to all my teammates. Fuck that.

A lot companies are doing this over the past 12 months to get rid of high cost employees without layoffs. The people most likely to quit are the ones with the highest pay and most options (who are the most likely to leave anyway). Those who refuse to adhere to the policy can be fired for cause and the company may be able to avoid unemployment claims. Facebook, Google, Twitter, and many, many more tech companies did this last year as the economy started shaking. It's another lever they can pull to raise share price by lowering expenses.

In most cases, the lost revenue/productivity from the leaving employees are not high enough to make a difference and exceptions can be made for truly outstanding employees or those in the "good ole boys" club.

Everyone is replaceable (not always at the level they were producing, but often at a level that is acceptable to keep things going well enough). This is why FU money is so important. At the end of the day, the organization as a whole doesn't really care about you. They will pull whatever lever they need for the decisions makers to be successful and happy. If your happiness and success coincides with their goals, you'll do well. If it doesn't, well, good luck to you.

Fundamentally changing the employment relationship is constructive dismissal. Those employees are getting unemployment.

[Captain FIRE]

If it is HR that is setting the policy, how are they supposed to find out if someone isn't coming to the office?   Do they have someone walking around the office every day, taking attendance?  Some IT system that detects if your laptop connects to the network?  A network of spies?  If your management chain doesn't report anything, how would HR know?

It's often collected from badge swipes, or from your PC's network telemetry if not

Yep, badge swipes. So you could go, badge, take a call or two and then return home.

One dumb outcome has been not enough offices for everyone who has come in.

[Dicey]

If it is HR that is setting the policy, how are they supposed to find out if someone isn't coming to the office?   Do they have someone walking around the office every day, taking attendance?  Some IT system that detects if your laptop connects to the network?  A network of spies?  If your management chain doesn't report anything, how would HR know?

It's often collected from badge swipes, or from your PC's network telemetry if not

Yep, badge swipes. So you could go, badge, take a call or two and then return home.

One dumb outcome has been not enough offices for everyone who has come in.

I like the way you think, Captain!