https://defused.com/office-employee-quits/?utm_source=unwomanly&utm_medium=unwomanly&utm_campaign=unwomanly

Since the pandemic, many people now want to WFH permanently since they don't have to deal with the commute, save money on gas (and probably not having to buy work attire).

However do you think Managers should allow special treatments to certain individuals if they are top performers and not others? My HR had advised me if I allow 1 person, then I may need to allow others to do the same thing. Hence, it's difficult for the Managers to make exception unless they are willing to take the risk that everyone will want to WFH 100% too.

What would you do if you were the top performer like this case? If you were the Manager in this case?

vay néu ai cũng WFH thì building / office bị bỏ trống hay sao ?

em thì nghĩ WFH thì WFH hết , vô office thì vô hết , khôngn phân chia top perfomrers or no ...làm vậy gây ganh ghét và xáo trộn between workers .

WFH saves company money too not having to rent office space, etc.

LoveStory08 wrote:WFH saves company money too not having to rent office space, etc.

But empty office buildings are not good for businesses & citiescounties/states. Hence, I think they are asking employers to have employees coming back to work slowly. Maybe a couple of days a week and slowly increasing.

Ignore performance , mọi người bình đẳng  

yeah, cái luật đâu có nói về performance đâu . phải bình đẳng

hãng Gạo, new hires, phải on site at least 2 days/wk, Wednesday + 1 day of their choice

Last year my company sent out an email saying Managers can allow employees to WFH upto 3 days/week.  But then they threw in a statement like "exception can be made at the discretion of the Managers".  Gà allowed teams maxiumum WFH 3 days week (chỉ vào sở 2 ngày thôi) vậy mà cũng có đứa complained đòi WFH 5 days nó nói commute nó xa quá (1 hour).

Gà giải thích là trước đây nó had no problem coming in every day with the same commute thì nó nói là concerned with COVID.  Gà cũng giải thích là COVID is here to stay and our company did everything to minimize the risks by requesting employees to get at least 1 or 2 vaccines (unless they have health conditions) và mổi ngày cleaning crew wiped down desks etc.  Nhưng nó 0 chịu và cũng nói vài teams khác Managers allowed their team to WFH 100%.  Bởi vậy Gà wished the HR gave out very clear policy chứ cái vụ at the discretion of the Managers cũng hơi khó enforce.

Nhỏ này làm việc cũng giỏi cho nên in the end Gà nói với nó là I cannot allow you the exception, however, you can escalate it up to my boss.  In the end ổng cũng gave in và cho nó WFH 5 days/week.  So far thì chưa thấy mấy đứa kia complained yet...nếu có thì Gà cũng sẽ nói là I did not allow it but she escalated higher up nếu tụi nó muốn làm thì they can do so as well.

Công nhận Covid làm cho ai cũng làm biếng nên đoi WFH  


Thank Cô Vi

ga10 wrote:

What would you do if you were the top performer like this case?  If you were the Manager in this case?

Everyone deserves a fair and equal treatment. I would give the employees the freedom to choose what he/she wanted to do. Most people prefer WFH, while there are folks still like to come to the office. Once the votes are in, I would have to analyze the situation to see if allowing the employees to WFH is the efficient methods of production. Will productivity reduced or meet and exceed the management's expectations.

At the end of the day, there should be no favoritism or impartial treatment to anyone who I would deem "outstanding performance" . "Due Process" is what should be the approach to the decisions.

mấy người già (career is well established or stable) thì ok chứ mấy đứa trẻ cần networking you know, they cần socialize at work too.

ga10 wrote:https://defused.com/office-employee-quits/?utm_source=unwomanly&utm_medium=unwomanly&utm_campaign=unwomanly

Since the pandemic, many people now want to WFH permanently since they don't have to deal with the commute, save money on gas (and probably not having to buy work attire).

However do you think Managers should allow special treatments to certain individuals if they are top performers and not others?  My HR had advised me if I allow 1 person, then I may need to allow others to do the same thing.  Hence, it's difficult for the Managers to make exception unless they are willing to take the risk that everyone will want to WFH 100% too.

What would you do if you were the top performer like this case?  If you were the Manager in this case?

Shake my head, and walk away. Poor management often dig a hole burring him/herself.

Rice wrote:mấy người già (career is well established or stable) thì ok chứ mấy đứa trẻ cần networking you know, they cần socialize at work too.

2 gà con đều prefer to WFH 100% tuy đều in their early 30's. Tụi nó nói WFH save gas money, expensive parking fees & also they can sleep in at least 45 minutes extra in the morning. Gà cũng có a few candidates turned down our offer when they found out they cannot do 100% WFH. I guess many people now expect to be able to WFH now.

ga10 wrote:

Rice wrote:mấy người già (career is well established or stable) thì ok chứ mấy đứa trẻ cần networking you know, they cần socialize at work too.

2 gà con đều prefer to WFH 100% tuy đều in their early 30's.  Tụi nó nói WFH save gas money, expensive parking fees & also they can sleep in at least 45 minutes extra in the morning.  Gà cũng có a few candidates turned down our offer when they found out they cannot do 100% WFH.  I guess many people now expect to be able to WFH now.

đĩ nhiên, tất cả đều LAZY từ big boss tới nhân viên, mấy ông boss giờ cũng làm biếng go to work 

https://cafemom.com/news/horrible-family-called-out-kids-pool/the-mom-then-turned-things-over-to-reddit-to-get-strangers-thoughts-on-the

On a separate note, do you think it's reasonable for the neighbor whose child drowned in their neighbor's pool last year to expect the new homeowners not used their pool because it traumatized them?

What would you do if you are the new homeowners?

ga10 wrote:https://cafemom.com/news/horrible-family-called-out-kids-pool/the-mom-then-turned-things-over-to-reddit-to-get-strangers-thoughts-on-the

On a separate note, do you think it's reasonable for the neighbor whose child drowned in their neighbor's pool last year to expect the new homeowners not used their pool because it traumatized them?

What would you do if you are the new homeowners?

Thường người bán phải nói cho người mua biết trước chuyện này chứ chị Gà? Nếu mà người mua biết mà vẫn mua, then it is up to người mua decision what to do.

hoàng tử lưng gù wrote:Thường người bán phải nói cho người mua biết trước chuyện này chứ chị Gà?  Nếu mà người mua biết mà vẫn mua, then it is up to người mua decision what to do.  

Đọc trong bài viết thì người bán có informed người mua là có đứa nhỏ drowned trong cái pool của họ. Nhưng người mua vẩn mua vì thấy giá affordable hơn có lẽ cũng vì đã có đứa nhỏ drowned.

Họ thích nhà có swimming pool nên mới mua cho nên hè tới họ filled up the pool. What they did not expect was their neighbors' objection/criticism that they are being insensitive to their neighbor's trauma.

cho tech lấy ghế ra ngồi học hỏi thêm vụ này...

-TECH-

ga10 wrote:

hoàng tử lưng gù wrote:Thường người bán phải nói cho người mua biết trước chuyện này chứ chị Gà?  Nếu mà người mua biết mà vẫn mua, then it is up to người mua decision what to do.  

Đọc trong bài viết thì người bán có informed người mua là có đứa nhỏ drowned trong cái pool của họ.  Nhưng người mua vẩn mua vì thấy giá affordable hơn có lẽ cũng vì đã có đứa nhỏ drowned.

Họ thích nhà có swimming pool nên mới mua cho nên hè tới họ filled up the pool.  What they did not expect was their neighbors' objection/criticism that they are being insensitive to their neighbor's trauma.  

New owner does not care hồ bơi có người chết còn mua, thì làm sao expect new owner care his/her neighbor's feeling?

neighbor kế bên mà không care thì cũng nên cẩn thận như thằng neighbor còn đang bị truy nã

I understand the other family lost their child and is grieving so it's understandable that hearing the children playing in the pool might traumatized them.  If it's that bad, then they should consider moving away so they don't have to be reminded of the tragedy whenever they looked at the pool anymore.  Just like the previous homeowners did not want to be reminded of what happened in their pool so they moved and sold their house for the lower price.

It's somewhat unreasonable for them to expect the new home owners to not enjoy their home just because a tragedy had occurred before they were even living there.  If the child had drowned in a YMCA pool, can they expect the YMCA to close down permanently?  Or if someone died in a car or plane crashes, can they expect the car companies/airlines to stop operating altogether?

For me, I would never buy that house knowingly a kid had drowned recently in that pool because I would be afraid of "ma da" and more tragedies would happened. In fact, I would not buy any house with a pool since it's too much hassle/liabilities!