JPMorgan Chase employees believe their work-life balance and health and well-being declined following the bank’s decision to return to office full-time in March, Barron’s reports. Based on an internal survey released this week of 90% of the workforce, the aforementioned areas scored lowest, alongside opportunities for internal mobility.

  • w3dd1e@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    My company did a forced RTO. Moral dropped. In one category, it dropped to 14%. We couldn’t hire anyone and people were quitting. Our president kept saying “We will never return to WFH.”

    Less than 6 months after he said that, we went fully remote. The whole RTO thing lasted about a year before they gave up.

    • AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      I wish this was more prolific. It seems half the people I know who get forced into RTO…the company suffers but it is never RTO’s fault.

      • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Aye. It’s always ok to simply go “shit, we were wrong, let’s do this different this time” because we’re all humans. It’s when you refuse to even consider something a failure and then everyone has to show up and step in that pile of shit every day… Great for morale.

  • roofuskit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    That was the point. It’s an unstructured layoff, where they create conditions that will force people to quit which reduces costs. But it does not carry the same scrutiny and regulation of a formal layoff.

    Edit: The other factor I think is causing these return to office requirements, is that the venn diagram of commercial real estate investors and sitting corporate board members is a circle.

    Investors should be demanding the paper trail for how these RTO decisions are made. It’s going to hurt a company’s ability to hire the best candidates in the long run and that’s going to affect profits.

    • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      3 days ago

      The only problem with this tactic as an unstructured layoff is that the first people to walk out the door are the people who can easily get jobs else where. You lose your best talent and retain the people who are less likely to find a new job

      Execs dont really care tho. Each person is a number and skill sets dont matter

    • Ledericas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      thats called constructive dismissal, basically pressuring people to resign, by creating a toxic work environment. it was all people could talk about in the “work” subs '23-'24

  • Wazowski@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I am so glad that I wield enough power to tell my employer to fuck off when it comes to time in the office.

    • mmddmm@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Your sentiment is on the right direction, but statistical significance and effect intensity are only indirectly related and one does really not imply much about the other.