Anyone have details on WFH positions being eliminated via a RTO policy coming down from on high?
20 replies (most recent on top)
What happened with this?
@mr sounds to me like maybe you don’t really understand the dynamics of the American workforce. Think about market adjustments that are made to pay every year with a large emphasis on what the cost of living is for the area the individual resides in. That isn’t fair either as potentially two individuals who do the same work at Cigna may be paid differently based upon where they live. I don’t think any of it is fair or just. The ADA example is not just window dressing on my reasoning. It is an example of individuals being treated differently due to different situations which I think most would agree is something that should be considered in how two employees would treated differently. Again - the concern should be towards leaderships lack of understanding of what AI actually is and does. My perspective is that certain corporations (ex. Microsoft) are selling Cigna leadership on the idea of AI and AI agents able to take place of humans who have experience and context for their roles. What cannot be “AI-ed” is being offshored.
Do I think that work from home should be offered as a benefit for all employees who meet certain criteria? Duh. Do I think Cigna has a high incentive to continue to hold certain real estate assets? Again, duh. Do I think that Cigna is trying to reduce operating expenses because our actual membership is slowing while there are legislative pressures aimed at reducing the profitability of each member? Duh.
We agree more than we disagree.
Having to resort to ADA accommodations shows how thin your argument is. No one is arguing against that.
Let's focus on the vast majority of employees without them. Giving one group a huge benefit, and another an ongoing cost - solely based on residential location - is hot garbage.
How about all employees with last names longer than 6 letters receive no bonuses, and those with 6 or less get 125%. Sound cool?
In the past it was based upon the skill set that you brought to Cigna and how readily available those skills were in the market. Those who are saying it wasn’t fair to those that have to go in the office are simply wrong. No work place treats all workers the same (ADA accommodations, etc). What has changed is that Cigna doesn’t seem to recognize talent differentiation any longer because of the promise of AI (realistically standing for Always India). What is ironic is that AI and outsourcing do not provide the same level of understanding and context that years of experience at a company provide, thus resulting in more slop or potential data breaches over seas. Cigna is sealing its own fate while the rest of us are hanging on for dear life.
For sure. If Cigna puts that into action, that's fine. But we know that it's unlikely to happen. Given only the options of status quo or requiring all to follow the same RTO policy, #2 all day, every day.
Anyone salty about that is too wrapped up in their own circumstances and refuses to see it from a broader perspective. No one would be happy living with the short end of the arbitrary stick.
@d5 you sound salty. “If I have to go in office so do you.” Some people signed up for wfh to begin with or were doing it long before Covid. Some people excel wfh, others abuse it. I think it should be tied to individual role and performance. Which is what it was when I started WFH. Back then Cigna actually paid for your internet too. It was tied to your metrics and performance as a privilege.
I know that's what it said in the faq but it's untrue, at least in some cases.
My team has 3 of us wfh, not near an office, and one rto, near an office. All the same band and doing the same work. The only difference is where we live.
That's not ok.
@d6 this is not true. While it does depend on role it also depends on location.
For example, my team has eight people. Three of them are from one merger and live nowhere near an office and don't have to come in. Five of us all have to drive into nearly empty offices in five different states. We all are roughly paid the same and all have the same title but some are forced to go in and some are not.
We should all be working from home.
@d5 work from arrangement depends on the role, not the person. Different positions have different requirements, which is why it isn’t applied universally.
@d1 it’s not that we can’t execute while working remotely. Covid showed that we can.
Its not fair that someone people get to WFH and others have to come into the office. Thats money and time on commute and getting ready for work so some people are actually working more and getting paid less.
WFH should be reserved for special cases if the official policy is RTO. Too many people are WFH when they don’t have any special reasons. Either we should all WFH or it should be saved for special cases.
Covid is what ruined wfh
@d1 and loooong before Covid.
@cr we execute the same way we always have. We operated fine during Covid. Quit being a di-khead
Not sure what that's supposed to mean but I'm about as peon-y as a peon can be in Cigna's world.
@cr Spoken like a true "insider".
Downvote away but you know I'm right and you'd feel the same if the tables were turned.
I'm not blaming the workers. I'm blaming the system and those who implemented it.
Long overdue. How can we possibly execute on our enterprise strategy (Lead to One) with one group receiving a huge permanent perk, and another group receiving nothing - solely based on residential location?
It will be nice to have everyone following one set of rules.
That's been mentioned a couple times in this thread
https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1kdzdzjzt
but I haven't heard anything else
@OP this is the first I heard this one
This terrifies me. I’ve been WFH since 2012 before it was cool. My office was closed.
It wouldn’t surprise me. It could be true. I’m sure they believe that some wfh will just up and quit. That’s one less person to layoff and pay severance to. If you’re wfh, start preparing yourself and planning on what you will do.