3 ms·

> If remote employees consistently come into the office more than four times every two months outside major events, they’ll be shifted to the three-day-a-week p

> If remote employees consistently come into the office more than four times every two months outside major events, they’ll be shifted to the three-day-a-week plan. If anyone gets fired as a result of this, or suffers performance penalties for not attending team events in fear if this, that would be a slam dunk constructive dismissal case no? This seems so absurd that any employment professional would draft and approve this.

notyourwork 3y ago
I’m also having trouble parsing the logic behind that specific language.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  It makes sense that they don't want to maintain office space and amenities for people who drop in whenever, so people can either be 3/5 in person or full remote. But if you are full remote, you cannot drop in whenever you fell like it.
  - sydbarrett74 3y ago
    I'm 100% remote. I live in VA, and the company I'm contracted to is based in OH. So my chances of dropping in ad hoc are precisely 0%. I imagine most 100% remote workers would be in the same boat.
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      So the rule of "if you drop in more than 4 times ad hoc in a two month period, not counting major company events" works to separate you from a non-true 100% remote person.
    - zeroonetwothree 3y ago
      Many Meta employees are “remote” but live in the same city as an office (I think it’s over half).
      - notyourwork 3y ago
        And that's a side effect of the pandemic, not because Meta actually wanted them to be remote.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    It makes sense not to give those remote workers assigned desks and PCs. But why not allow them to come in occasionally and hot-desk if they want to? Meta is surely not so strapped for resources that it can't put aside a space for hot-desking. It comes across as a manipulative ploy to disincentivise remote work.
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      Why does Person A get to show up whenever they want and Person B has to be in 3 days a week. All the people in Person B's position will be annoyed that they don't have the same freedom, which will cause issues. Meanwhile, why does the manager have to go through the added work of managing a remote worker who is there most of the time just so they can do their 1/month a year of work from a beach at their discretion?
      - n4r9 3y ago
        I agree that Person B's situation feels unfair compared to Person A's. However: a) It's just one of many ways that employees can negotiate more favourable contract terms. They can also negotiate more annual leave, fewer hours, smaller notice periods etc... and with proper management it shouldn't cause issues. b) People who work regularly in the office have perks like their own permanent desk and PC. c) The cause of this unfavourable situation is the 3 day / week policy put in place by senior management in the first place. Imagine cutting the carpark in half to save costs, and then removing the bike racks as well so that the car drivers don't feel as hard done by. It comes across as spiteful. As for the "added work of managing", I'm not sure I follow. I previously managed a couple of people, one of whom came in 2-3x per week and the other was almost completely remote but came in occasionally. Once things are set up so that meetings or calls can be done remotely or in-person on the fly, this isn't much of an obstacle. Perhaps it becomes more of an obstacle with larger teams, but that isn't something I hear from other managers in my company. It is tricky to run meetings with half the people in the room and half remote - but this isn't solved by forcing remote workers to stay remote (if anything it makes it worse).
        rhaway84773 3y ago
MattHeard 3y ago
"If you're physically capable of coming in 5 times over the course of two months you must therefore also be physically capable of coming in 26 times over the course of two months." (Sarcasm, of course.)
- extraduder_ire 3y ago
  "Sorry boss, I can't make it in this week, that would change the conditions of my employment."

notyourwork 3y ago

I’m also having trouble parsing the logic behind that specific language.

HWR_14 3y ago
It makes sense that they don't want to maintain office space and amenities for people who drop in whenever, so people can either be 3/5 in person or full remote. But if you are full remote, you cannot drop in whenever you fell like it.
- sydbarrett74 3y ago
  I'm 100% remote. I live in VA, and the company I'm contracted to is based in OH. So my chances of dropping in ad hoc are precisely 0%. I imagine most 100% remote workers would be in the same boat.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    So the rule of "if you drop in more than 4 times ad hoc in a two month period, not counting major company events" works to separate you from a non-true 100% remote person.
  - zeroonetwothree 3y ago
    Many Meta employees are “remote” but live in the same city as an office (I think it’s over half).
    - notyourwork 3y ago
      And that's a side effect of the pandemic, not because Meta actually wanted them to be remote.
- n4r9 3y ago
  It makes sense not to give those remote workers assigned desks and PCs. But why not allow them to come in occasionally and hot-desk if they want to? Meta is surely not so strapped for resources that it can't put aside a space for hot-desking. It comes across as a manipulative ploy to disincentivise remote work.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    Why does Person A get to show up whenever they want and Person B has to be in 3 days a week. All the people in Person B's position will be annoyed that they don't have the same freedom, which will cause issues. Meanwhile, why does the manager have to go through the added work of managing a remote worker who is there most of the time just so they can do their 1/month a year of work from a beach at their discretion?
    - n4r9 3y ago
      I agree that Person B's situation feels unfair compared to Person A's. However: a) It's just one of many ways that employees can negotiate more favourable contract terms. They can also negotiate more annual leave, fewer hours, smaller notice periods etc... and with proper management it shouldn't cause issues. b) People who work regularly in the office have perks like their own permanent desk and PC. c) The cause of this unfavourable situation is the 3 day / week policy put in place by senior management in the first place. Imagine cutting the carpark in half to save costs, and then removing the bike racks as well so that the car drivers don't feel as hard done by. It comes across as spiteful. As for the "added work of managing", I'm not sure I follow. I previously managed a couple of people, one of whom came in 2-3x per week and the other was almost completely remote but came in occasionally. Once things are set up so that meetings or calls can be done remotely or in-person on the fly, this isn't much of an obstacle. Perhaps it becomes more of an obstacle with larger teams, but that isn't something I hear from other managers in my company. It is tricky to run meetings with half the people in the room and half remote - but this isn't solved by forcing remote workers to stay remote (if anything it makes it worse).
      - rhaway84773 3y ago

MattHeard 3y ago

"If you're physically capable of coming in 5 times over the course of two months you must therefore also be physically capable of coming in 26 times over the course of two months." (Sarcasm, of course.)

extraduder_ire 3y ago
"Sorry boss, I can't make it in this week, that would change the conditions of my employment."