SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Exclusive IBM is cracking down on remote workers, ordering unlucky employees to either come into one of six main offices and work "shoulder to shoulder" – or leave for good.
In a confidential video message to staff seen by The Register on Tuesday, chief marketing officer Michelle Peluso told her US marketing troops they must work at "a smaller set of locations" if they want to continue with the company. Staffers have 30 days to decide whether to stay or go.
This means affected IBMers who telecommute, work at a smaller district office, or otherwise work separately from their team, will now have just a few weeks to either quit their jobs, or commit to moving to another part of America. The company's employee badge system will be used to ensure people do come into the office rather than stealthily remain remote workers.
According to sources, the six "strategic" offices US marketing staff must work from are in: Austin, Texas; San Francisco, California; New York City, New York; Boston, Massachusetts; Atlanta, Georgia; and Raleigh, North Carolina. El Reg understands that employees will not get to choose a nearby office, but will instead be assigned a location based on where their team is predominantly situated. The first wave of workers were informed of the changes on Monday. The next wave will be instructed in early March, we're told.
Marissa Mayer has worked wonders at Yahoo and the rest of the tech industry should follow her lead?
(Score: 3, Informative) by PiMuNu on Thursday February 09 2017, @12:06PM
Unless when you interviewed/accepted the job they said "working from home is fine".
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 09 2017, @12:51PM
In writing, otherwise it's not worth more than the paper is printed on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by driven on Thursday February 09 2017, @02:08PM
I'm not a lawyer, but I think that if hundreds of people are working from home then it's reasonable to show that it had been accepted practice.
I also don't see how they can make you "quit" your job. They should get laid off and get proper severance.
I see one of the offices is in San Francisco. Have fun affording living expenses there and enjoy your commute! [/sarcasm]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @04:35PM
That's a pragmatic argument, not a moral one. You can get away with breaking the law but that doesn't mean you aren't breaking it.
(Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Thursday February 09 2017, @12:59PM
Except that the needs of the business can change. It is not unreasonable for an employer to revisit telecommuting agreements, just as they would make a decision about keeping an office in a particular city. That said, the scale of this seems like a knee-jerk reaction to what is probably an isolated/regional problem.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Thursday February 09 2017, @01:01PM
Not only that - the employer is changing the conditions of employment. They can do that so long as they're not asking you to do something illegal.
(Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Thursday February 09 2017, @05:35PM
Right, in which case the prior poster's claim of being "fired with cause" is false. It's a layoff. People aren't being fired because they've done anything wrong. IBM previously had a need for people doing $SERVICE and were willing to left them work at home. Now they want people in the office.
Doesn't mean I think IBM is making the right call here, btw.
I do think telework isn't right for every employee, or every company, or every manager. I don't think managers need to see a body at a desk to know someone's working, but they should be aware whether a reasonable quantity and quality of work is coming from every single employee, whether or not they're on site.