An Anonymous Soylentil 'Connor the Kicking Cog' writes:
Under two months ago I started working at a massive incumbent telecom company in their regional call center. From the start it has been a draining experience. The orientation lasted two days, alternating between how much the company loves us, especially veterans, and how unions are awful things. The first real day of training included a bunch of inane policies such as:
Call centers are regimented things, but these policies are so worker-hostile I am surprised staff turnover is not an issue already. The training completed before the 40 day mark, but was longer some time ago, yet the 90 day period remains.
Thankfully another company has hired me and all background checks have cleared so I will be departing from the soulless mega-corporation. Being a professional I would prefer not to needlessly burn bridges, but I am not going to give the customary two weeks notice. Based on the above policies I believe it is likely I will be immediately escorted out should I do so without any compensation for the two week period. Does anyone reading this believe they would "recoup their investment in training me" by keeping me on for those two weeks?
Is it worthwhile to state in my resignation email that these policies were major motivating factors in departing as soon as possible? Or would such an email only be cathartic for me at best? Or even a risk at worst?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @06:30PM
Personally I would tell them you will be leaving in a note, that you found a place you think you fit better.
I wouldn't mind hinting to them that you don't care for the policies but such policies are typically, in my experience, the result of being a super-huge mega-corp that gives zero $#@ks and judges people by the numbers. You should still tell them you are leaving though. You can't help their behavior probably but no reason to be rude. They aren't likely to consider changing the rules seriously unless the numbers suggest a major skew (mass exodus), something political/legal forces them, or some new and promising policy reaches the ears of HR.
I used to work for Wal-mart, years back. They had some similar policies, but it wasn't so bad, because the local store managers were okay. At the time they had a lot of leniency to be allowed to bend things if they had reason to. It taught me my attitude about my job and matters mattered a lot; smiling and being ready to work warmed people up to me and I got a lot of leniency the times I really needed it, and the judge-by-the-numbers policies gave me, on paper, what the company expected, so I didn't hate it. It doesn't sound like you had the benefit of this possibility though; I hear Wal-Marts vary a lot in this too, from store to store.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @06:53PM
such policies are typically, in my experience, the result of being a super-huge mega-corp that gives zero $#@ks and judges people by the numbers
Alternative interpretation: This ensures that mega-corp treats everyone equally and avoids charges of sexism, racism, or other forms of favoritism that might be alleged if management were allowed to use judgment in such cases.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday August 31 2016, @07:41PM
Having a policy achieves that, there is no need to have a hostile policy.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @11:08PM
>> It taught me my attitude about my job and matters mattered a lot;
>> smiling and being ready to work warmed people up to me and I got a lot of leniency the times I really needed it
Fixed that for you,
It taught me my skin color mattered a lot;
smiling and being white warmed people up to me and I got a lot of leniency the times I really needed it