I honestly thought things would change after the pandemic. The work from home makes so much sense and it was proven that it increases productivity while reducing costs (no need for as much office space.) I thought for sure the majority of companies would see this as an advantage and would continue with it even when COVID-19 wasn't as much of a threat. I've never been more wrong in my life. It's not just BofA that's forcing a return to the office. Every major bank is doing the same. I know, I've been trying to find a new job that'd allow me to continue to work from home. I'm not able to find one. Apparently, being able to see your employees do the work for some reason beats both increased productivity and reduced costs. Why is that so important, I have no idea.
15 replies (most recent on top)
@2wzc+1dGG96Jf Most employees are happier working remotely and thus worker satisfaction has been shown in studies to lead to higher output/productivity. Surveys have shown that 80% of workers prefer flexibility in where they work.
Many people have also put in more work time remotely since they save hours a day not having to commute. Many of us with children can also balance work/life commitments easier while working from home and find that we have to take less personal time away from work to manage that.
@2vub+1dGG96Jf You're right, most companies doing hybrid have about a 50 / 50 split between remote and office. Ideally I'd want to WFH full time but I have acknowledged that BofA will never go with that so I'd personally be happy with a hybrid plan.
All we've heard so far is full time RTO and you can work from home occasionally when needed, which is less flexibility than I had pre pandemic which I find baffling and disappointing. I'm in a back office role so most I work with find very little benefit in commuting in only to meet over Skype or WebEx calls to accommodate others in India, other cities, etc. etc.
People keep saying they are more productive at home, and yet I’ve never heard any data to back that, it’s always anecdotal at best. Obviously all jobs are not easily quantifiable, but what about ones that are, e.g. call center roles? Have we not heard about this because the data doesn’t exist to support increased productivity, or at least on par productivity, or is it not being discussed because regardless of productivity leadership wants people back in the office?
Anyone know?
a hybrid model isn't working from home 4 or 5 days a week. My friend works in a hybrid environment. 2 at home 1 week and 3 at home the next.
@1pxz+1dGG96Jf damn it man, I get you, that's how the horse and buggy people were wiped out, their loss is felt today stronger than ever. We should all stand in front of progress and embrace inefficiencies, waste and archaic concepts because they create jobs, maintain a crippling yet dysfunctional system and it sustains the status quo.
@1pxz+1dGG96Jf That’s not sound reasoning… people still drive, shop, dine out or take out while WFH. I think most people are looking for a little flexibility given that we have made it work very well remotely the past 20 months.
If there isn’t a hybrid plan put in place then many employees will leave next year. It’s as simple as that.
Let’s think about this for a minute. What do you think will happen to the economy if Bank of America along with other banks and large companies let all eligible people work from home? People won’t be driving much so they won’t be buying gas or need their vehicles serviced as much. Gas prices will sky ticket. Small auto shops would go out of business. Chain shops would increase their prices. Car salesmen will be laid off. Buildings will sit empty. The people who clean, cook and guard those buildings will lose their jobs. My thoughts are if you were hired to work in the office stop complaining and just go back to the office. Be thankful you still have a job. Or quit and work for another company. Just remember the grass isn’t always greener.
They ALSO STFU about “trust in team” if they’re hellbent on watching our every move instead of treating us as professionals.
“That’s the way we’ve always done it” is a pathetic excuse for RTO. It’s composed by old white men who grew up before the internet was around and have struggled to stay relevant ever since.
ESG = "We care so little about the environment and climate change, that we are willing to put 100k employees back into the daily commute simply so we can push down on the top of their heads with our thumbs instead of letting them work remotely as high performers."
As long as the bank insists "We are an in-office company" they need to STFU about caring one bit about the planet or the environment. Period.
In fiscal year 2021, the U.S. government paid $246.9 million in claims for vaccine-related injuries and deaths. Not a single payout was related to Covid-19 vaccines.
Each person with a “provable” injury from a Covid vaccine could claim up to $379,000 from a special Covid vaccine fund set up by the federal government. The payout for death could be as high as $370,376.
However, according to an OpenTheBooks.com investigation, the federal government didn’t pay a penny for Covid-vaccine claims. The special fund for these claims is called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).
There were only 1,357 claims filed that alleged “injuries/deaths from the Covid vaccines,” and 53 were listed as deaths, according to recent reporting by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
By contrast, the self-reporting Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (VAERS) lists 16,310 deaths related to Covid vaccines. Of these, “5,326 of the deaths occurred on Day 0, 1,or 2 following vaccination[.]”
The low number of applicants to the CICP fund for injuries or death from the Covid vaccine suggests that people don’t know the special fund exists.
The “normal” vaccine fund, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), has existed since 1988 and provides compensation for injuries or deaths associated with most vaccines routinely administered in the United States (such as pediatric and seasonal influenza vaccines), according to the Congressional Research Service.
Last year, this fund paid out $246.9 million in vaccine-related injuries and deaths. Payouts include $250,000 for a vaccine-caused death and $250,000 “for pain and suffering and emotional distress.” A special vaccine court handles these claims.
However, in the case of Covid-19 vaccines developed and approved under Project Warp Speed, deaths resulting from a Covid vaccine would pay out through the CICP and would pay more money than a vaccine-related death in normal times.
Since the benefit for a death caused by a Covid-19 vaccine is $370,376 for fiscal year 2021 and $50,000 per year for lost employment income (with a lifetime cap to be “generally $379,000”). So, the death benefit is $120,376 higher than for other vaccines ($250,000).
However, there is no equivalent to the VICP’s $250,000 “for pain and suffering and emotional distress” under the current Covid-19 parameters.
Here are some other differences between the two vaccine-injury funds:
No attorney fees. The Covid fund is not authorized to provide reimbursement for attorneys’ fees. Therefore, lawyers have less incentive to represent claims.
Injured children receive small payouts. A Covid vaccine-injured child would only be reimbursed for “reasonable medical expenses.” Since the child survived and isn’t employed, there’s no other compensation.
Narrow window to file a claim. The Covid fund allows a one-year window to file a claim whereas the regular vaccine fund has a three-year window.
And sure enough, the CICP fund hasn’t paid out a dime in Covid-vaccine claims. HHS bluntly states online, “As of October 1, 2021, the CICP has not compensated any Covid-19 countermeasures claims.”
Full article on the link below:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/11/04/feds-pay-zero-claims-for-covid-19-vaccine-injuriesdeaths/?sh=2e63a6684a87
They don’t want you happy, that’s why.
@ltp+1dGG96Jf - Stay with me here, I know it's crazy but shouldn't this have been done, I don't know, say....sometime over the past 20 months?
You are absolutely right, the hypocrisy of these 'leaders' is beyond belief when it comes to global warming/climate change, carbon reduction and the necessary steps to achieve that goal. Working From Home is an obvious step in that direction, however, current leadership of BAC is not mentally equipped to deal with that issue. I hope the board and the stockholders will choose a more progressive CEO to lead the bank into the 21st century.
I don’t understand how BM or any executive for that matter, can talk about climate pledges, but then not accept or be open to WFH. We are now targeted to easily pass the 1.5 degree benchmark that we needed to stay below of. The entire thing is ridiculous and really speaks to the greed and inflexibility and downright stupidity of those in power.
It all boils down to dollars in the short term for being against wfh. They need us to spend money, and rent office spaces, and buy gas. But this shortsightedness has the potential to lead to financial ruin on the scale that we’ve never seen before. Not to mention the environmental and ecological damage we’re causing. Hundreds of species are going extinct at a rate never seen before. To not take this all seriously and to insist on 200k employees commuting to the office daily is just downright obtuse.
These people in power have mostly gone to top universities, I’d imagine they have some critical thinking skills. Why are they just ignoring all of this? We are in the hands of inept leaders, and this is worldwide btw. Not talking about the current administration.
My senior executive said at their last townhall that BM has asked for a task force to look at how a hybrid model would work… what job codes could work from home part of the time and how it could be implemented. No promises. But I’m relieved and hopeful.