CSCO is working on a major overhaul whereby all those who WFH/remote will have to come to the office 5 days a week (M-F). This will be implemented just before Q4 ends. Employees will be given 2 weeks to adjust to the new norm. Those who wont comply will be put on the chopping block. Only few exceptions will be granted.
Yahoo tried the same strategy and they failed miserable. I think this is just another excuse to get rid of older workers.
In the UK we were told we needed to be more of an office culture and they announced a massive investment in to Bedfont Lakes.
I would not be surprised if it Monday to Thursday becomes mandatory in the office (or at customer site).
@3zdf: I think the OP's comment that this is coming to Cisco is not true. However what IS true is that IBM is doing it, it is certainly a 'backdoor layoff' and if history serves as a guide, if IBM does it we will eventually follow. We are on the same death spiral. They are just 5-7 years ahead of us.
To echo a lot of other concerned people here, if this does become a reality @ Cisco it means times are quite desperate and the end is nigh.
First time I'm hearing this. My buddies were talking about this in group chat this morning and they pointed me to this site.
This can't be true. Without WFH, I will have to hang my hat. Been here for the past 14yrs and have been remote for the last 9yrs. Man, I forgot even how to tie my tie, my suits don't fit anymore.
Oh well, gonna sit at home all day doing nothing today but watch Netflix. This is so demoralizing.
I can see this being a way of incentivising people to leave without announcing LRs to the market or paying people off. It would defiantly work and it would mostly be deadwood who sit at home doing nothing who would leave first. Maybe doing it for 12 months then move back to WFH culture.
Mate, you're just a small-minded prat.
My experience in WFH and then spending a week or so in SJ is just how unproductive the office is.
Firstly, nobody is there until 11am, because everybody is stuck at home in early morning con-calls with Europe and India; oh, and "beating the traffic". Once a few people get there, you cannot get a damned thing done, because you get s---ed into every query, escalation and cooler chat that's on. Several times a day, some manager will drag you into some hippy-themed scrum room for an hour of unending rehash of some teensie issue that needs decision, not discussion.
Then people all pair up and split off for lunch-time chat and then at 3pm, they are all out the door to beat the traffic or pick up the kids. After about 4pm, it's a place to get stuff done. Meanwhile, all the execs are absent, since they live in Austin, San Bernadino, Wisconsin or Napa.
@IBM directors and up are allowed to be remote
WFH Schedule:
9AM - play Call of Duty
10AM - Watch Price is Right
11AM - Power Nap
12PM - 2 Martini lunch
2PM - pick up kids from school
3PM - Netflix movie
Almost 5000 views. WFH is apparently a big issue here.
They don't care if you quit. You don't get it yet, do you?
Don't all the VPs have uber high end TP units that are fully paid for by Cisco? I've seen quite a few of them with them at home AND in the office. I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that Michael Dell used to sit in a cube. Wish our VPs would sit in cubes or open spaces with the rest of us with headsets on.
This would be a total show-stopper for me !!!
If Cisco does this, I will QUIT and go somewhere else ...
Hard to see them enforcing this when VP's have nice remote gigs.
We follow IBM, don't we... So, this is just a natural next step.
@1mnz - one of the best posts I've seen on this board, and I've been here since 2015.
Well articulated, valid and up to the point...
Not being able to WFH would be me out of Cisco. In fact, they cannot enforce it, since I have a work contract that asks me to do just that (not in US). I've been working from home since 2000. It's a staggering deal for the company. Let's see: 1) they don't pay for office space in nice centralized, expensive locations 2) they don't have to heat/cool it 3) no security staff or reception 4) I buy a house with an additional room for Cisco at no cost to them 5) I pay for desk, chair, internet connection 6) I buy printer and scanner and pay for my own toner replacement 7) I'm now available 24x7 since my work laptop isn't in my briefcase after arriving home 8) they can schedule con-calls 12 time zones away because my work is only ten steps away 9) the time I would have spent dressing and driving is now spent working. 10) no water cooler chatter or lunch excursions 11) no cleaning or maintenance costs. Etc etc
In fact, I've heard WFH colleagues being asked in All Hands to explain to the rest of the team how come they are so effective?
This is just dumb and dumber. Nobody in my group works together. We have PM in San Jose, TME's out in the field, and engineering in India. So, the PM and execs herd into the office to make calls somewhere else, all "shoulder to shoulder" whilst wearing company supplied noise-canceling headphones so they can hear Bangalore clearly. We now have "global teams" so nobody works in a team in the one spot - we hire cheap labor in India, Poland, Bulgaria, China or the Philippines. So, just how can two halves of a team who need to talk to each other; yet both mandated to be in the office, going to do that when they at 12 time zones apart?.
All my calls are with India+Europe at 7-10am PST (late evening in India); others in late afternoon with APAC (Early morning there) and Europe 8-9 hours ahead around midday (late evening there). The company set up these global teams in these stupid time zones, and so now how do they work?
Ohh, I get it. 8 hours in the office and then another bunch of hours at home. In fact, one of my ex-VP's said just that to an all hands (she's a big women in tech mentor if you want a hint). She said it's 8 hours in the office for meetings and "collaboration", then eight hours at home is to do the work you didn't get done in the office, and the other eight hours is for rest. Executives who say things like this is Europe would end up in front of the courts.
This is settled science. There are heaps of studies that show how effective it makes people. Insecure execs are wanting to undo it to see their underlings all lined up in front of them.
I'm sure the HR people are considering it, as a way of forcing older, more established workers out but only one thing that could slow it down, is that a lot of senior execs work remotely, at least in my BU. Of course, they'll get a pass.
As I said, Dumb and Dumber
Working from your bed with pajamas on is not working. Get real. That's called too lazy to even get up and change your clothes.
Stupid person. I wake up at 7:30 and read email on iPad and plan calendar for the day. Well, I did until this week when security changed the rules and demanded total access to my iPad as a condition to read mail (including permission to read anything and remote wipe it at their discretion - I declined).
" Everyweekend and PTO , I WFH" I stopped that $hit when Cisco stopped paying for my Internet connection and only WFH when it was convenient for me.
Working from your bed with pajamas on is not working. Get real. That's called too lazy to even get up and change your clothes.
Probably a reason why employees should not be allowed to wfh.
I WFH from my bed in pajamas almost all day. I get to do quite a lot work than if I were to work at my desk at home. So this idea of going into the office will be the last nail in the coffin for me.
JNPR/GOOG/AMZN/FB/MSFT/ANET etc, all have WFH.
total BS. Cisco Always allowed WFH. Everyweekend and PTO , I WFH.
Please dont take away these WFH, otherwise on weekends and PTO.. god forbid, we might just live life !
This would be a hard policy change to enforce. Cisco has tons of remote workers.....especially the higher up engineers and sales folks. Most of them live wherever they want....far from regular Cisco offices.
Some organizations at Cisco have been enforcing no wfh and others have suggested coming into the office a minimum of 3 days a week.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a larger push throughout the company to require coming into the office.
Total and utter b---s---.
They are getting rid of the only reason anyone stays at Cisco? BTW, be careful what you post on FB or LinkedIn. Cisco is really thin skinned and you'll find yourself out of a job immediately.
Says who?
Make sense? When has any of this made sense?
Bunk, as booting folks from offices puts the office space cost on the employee. A home DX cost pales in comparison. Once you are remote you are vulnerable if you are not well known. With our group the campus hits were bigger than the remotes.
I know a lot of buildings in SJ which plenty of vacant space. Come on people, let's make these buildings louder!
When Cisco is behind selling off as many buildings as possible in SJ and consolidate office spaces in various locations why would they ask people to come to office. This is also another way to showcase Cisco's strength in Collaboration. Teams are scattered across the globe with many Dev teams split between SJ, RTP, EU and India, what benefit would it bring to ask everyone to come office? I work in a group where it would make zero sense to ask people to work from a cubicle in the office. Our VP would ridicule it for sure.
I agree with @NnpeYFO-vkg. This tactic would eliminate alot of quality people without having to provide them a package. Cisco is hellbent on hiring low grade levels / recent grads and this option would accelerate this activity.
Don't believe this one, gotta be hogwash. Due to real estate, Cisco has actually told people they need to WFH in the past. Don't see that changing even with the revamped 'open office' floorplan that packs twice the number of people into the same amount of office space.
Bullocks? Have you noticed Cisco follows what IBM does? Have you heard about IBM's co-location requirement? I've known a few who have been hit by this. Nothing fake or bullocks about it.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/08/ibm_no_more_telecommuting/
It's a sneaky LR. Exactly what IBM is doing:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/18/ibm-tells-remote-employees-to-get-back-to-the-office/
Complete bollocks.
I don't know. Sounds fake, but given what IBM is doing, there's some validity to this. As it is now, many depts have a WFH only on occasion rule (waiting for delivery, kid sick, etc.) Noticed that the LR'd batch in our area this week were the ones who mostly WFH'd.
Sounds like fake news. Trump and his people will have you jailed for this!
This would work to cause a lot of voluntary people to leave with no LR compensation. But you would lose the good with the bad, with many of the good going to competitors. Voluntary did not work out well for them with the over 50 early retirement deal - lost a lot of key people.
Certainly would make those 20K DX-70's and DX-80's they shipped to the sales force a few years ago redundant.
Several major cities that I know of couldn't house all their local workers if they all came in at once. True remote people would quit, but they would have a logistical nightmare trying to maintain productivity in major locations that don't have room. Can't see them adding additional real estate.
And unless they are going to virtual sales model, you have to have offices by state to house sales if they all need to come into the office.
One last thing. Certainly would be a poke in the eye to the Collaboration business, as they sell Cisco as an example of a virtualized workforce.
Could be true, but not sure I buy this one.
This is garbage....
I hope its not true, that's the only incentive on gets from working at Cisco