Meta updates RTO policy with stricter mandate, saying workers may lose their jobs if they don’t show up 3 days a week::Meta, formerly known as Facebook, told employees that its new RTO policy would be enforced by management.

  • Prox
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1711 months ago

    Meta knows this is a dumb policy. This is just a way to lay off workers without actually firing people.

    • gian
      link
      fedilink
      English
      511 months ago

      Only problem is that this way you probably lose the most valuable people, which can easily find an alternative

      • @thisisnotgoingwell@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        411 months ago

        That’s built into the model. Stars carry the weight because they’ve shouldered the responsibility. Others will step up… The work will be subpar, but when companies do risk analysis on stuff like this, they know how much gas they can burn before needing to be competitive again. Just another reason why we need unions in the US.

        • gian
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          I am not sure the model would work that well. The problem with loosing the stars is that you are also loosing the know how and the past memory of what you have and that are either irreplacable or hard (or at least long) to rebuild.

          If the people that remain are not stars there is a reason, I would not bet on the fact that someone who has no other options would step up, not becauae he don’t want but probably because he is not a star to be in the first place.

          Anyway, I agree, in the US you should begin to form worker unions or at least to lobby to eradicate the “at will” employment.

  • @dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1611 months ago

    Being fully remote means Meta will not maintain desk space for such workers, who should not come to an office “more than 4 days every 2 months,” Goler’s memo said,

    That’s actually just as dumb, it means that if that remote worker comes to the Home Office they can’t stay a full week. Even saying “more than 5 days every 3 months” makes more sense.

    • @Kinglink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      9
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I don’t have a problem with this. My office made this rule too, basically you chose hybrid, in person, or full remote. I went full remote. I don’t have a desk at the office, but I’m not required to come in. When I go in there’s hoteling offices, meaning I get an office to work, and theoretically if I went in for a week, I can leave my stuff there, but after that week, I take my stuff and go home.

      4 days every two month is WAY too low to maintain an office for a person. Heck even 2 days a week is borderline. Companies want to reduce their floorplans, and that’s reasonable if they allow full remote, as long as full remote means full remote. (not required to come in)

      • @dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        6
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        No, I have no problem with not maintaining an office for remote workers. But they are telling remote workers they can’t be on site for more than 4 days in a span. That’s the dumb part. It should have been 5 days, so that remote worker can get a whole working week at the company’s office if they need it.

        • @Kinglink@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Oh I totally misunderstood/misread that. Sorry.

          That’s fucking dumb as shit, agreed. Then again that gives me an excuse to go home ASAP.

  • @phoneymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4811 months ago

    A year ago they told people something different and people made decisions around that policy. Reversing course is evil and bad management.

    • @scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1811 months ago

      Sounds like the kind of shit you pull when you actively want attrition. There are times when a company needs to cut people and then layoffs happen. There are also times when the company is willing to say “we’re imposing policy X and if you can’t get with that, we’re happy to lose you.”

  • @books@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2311 months ago

    Given how bad this company is tanking, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was deliberately done to cut payroll.

    • @stigmata@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      811 months ago

      “How bad this company is tanking.”

      Y’all are ridiculous. Meta isn’t anywhere near tanking. I don’t know why some of you parrots keep saying this.

      • @GenericUsername34@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 months ago

        They lost ~$10b in net income in Q4 '22 and Q1 '23 so definitely a company in some level of distress, but Q2 saw them ~$7.5b in the black.

        • @stigmata@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          What? They make billions in profit every quarter and have been for a long time. Meta isn’t anywhere near being in trouble.

      • @books@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 months ago

        Sorry should have been more clear. Facebook is tanking. Obviously meta as an org is fine.