The cost of staying remote at Dell: No promotions or job changes

[midian182]

A hot potato: Like the majority of big tech firms, Dell has implemented a return-to-office mandate in recent times. And while the company won't fire those who demand to fully remote, they will be punished in another way: no promotions or applying for new roles.

Starting in May, Dell employees will mostly be classified as either remote or hybrid, writes Business Insider. Hybrid workers must come into the office at least 39 days per quarter, which is the equivalent of about three days per week.

Dell is giving staff the option to stay working from home full time. That might sound enticing, but there are some major caveats. As per a memo seen by BI, the tradeoffs are that career advancement, including applying to new roles in the company, will require a team member to reclassify as "being hybrid onsite."

CEO Michael Dell had previously been one of the few tech bosses to advocate for remote work. "At Dell, we found no meaningful differences for team members working remotely or office-based even before the pandemic forced everyone home," he said in 2022.

Even before the pandemic, Dell was one of the best employers for fans of remote work, with 65% of staff working remotely at least one day per week prior to 2020. Its CEO futher criticized RTO policies on LinkedIn, writing "If you are counting on forced hours spent in a traditional office to create collaboration and provide a feeling of belonging within your organization, you're doing it wrong."

Unsurprisingly

It seems the company has changed its stance since then, telling BI that "in-person connections paired with a flexible approach are critical to drive innovation and value differentiation."

Dell's transition away from WFH began in early 2023 when it started demanding workers who live within an hour's commute to the closest company office start coming back in for three days per week.

Dell workers are as frustrated at the new RTO policy as they were back in early 2023. "We're being forced into a position where either we're going to be staying as the low man on the totem pole, first on the chopping block when it comes to workforce reduction, or we can be hybrid and go in multiple days a week, which really affects a lot of us," one said. Some staff said it is impossible for them to get into the office, meaning they are trapped in a remote position with no prospects.

BI writes that it viewed a promotion offer to a long-serving remote Dell worker that said he would have to move state to be near an approved site and start coming into the office in order to accept it.

As was the case last year, some workers believe the latest RTO policy is simply a way of forcing employees to quit, meaning Dell doesn't have to pay severance. The company eliminated about 6,600 jobs, or around five percent of its global workforce, last year as its PC sales struggled.

Dell isn't the only company punishing remote workers this way. In May 2023, IBM CEO Arvind Krishna said some remote staff may struggle to get promoted or advance their careers.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/102313-cost-staying-remote-dell-no-promotions-or-job.html

 

[Uncle Al]

It would appear that with all the "trimming" being done by IT companies, tighter laws need to be enacted to protect workers from the lack of planning on the part of the companies. It's one thing to hire seasonal or contract workers but quite another to hire somebody at a lesser wage because they are "corporate", enjoy their work at a lower cost then simply cut them to save money. It's starting to look like ALL non-managerial work forces should be unionized in order to protect the worker from corporate greed ......

 

[The Talking Tech]

Well working from home is already a promotion all on itself l, so these people should not complain.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

It would appear that with all the "trimming" being done by IT companies, tighter laws need to be enacted to protect workers from the lack of planning on the part of the companies. It's one thing to hire seasonal or contract workers but quite another to hire somebody at a lesser wage because they are "corporate", enjoy their work at a lower cost then simply cut them to save money. It's starting to look like ALL non-managerial work forces should be unionized in order to protect the worker from corporate greed ......

It's not the governments job to determine how a business operates. When you hire into a remote only job, this is the risk you take.

And honestly, if you think the GOVERNMENT is better at planning things out ahead of time, I think you may need to take your meds again. Because last time I checked, governments are chock full of waste from unplanned projects and total lack of communications.

 

[VaRmeNsI]

It would appear that with all the "trimming" being done by IT companies, tighter laws need to be enacted to protect workers from the lack of planning on the part of the companies. It's one thing to hire seasonal or contract workers but quite another to hire somebody at a lesser wage because they are "corporate", enjoy their work at a lower cost then simply cut them to save money. It's starting to look like ALL non-managerial work forces should be unionized in order to protect the worker from corporate greed ......

Forcing people (business) to buy things they don't want (labor) is wrong.

 

[jwdR311]

My son got caught up in this. He started working for Dell remotely. Dell doesn't have an office in the city he is in so it was sell the house he just bought and move across state or change jobs. He's a lower tiered employee so 'no promotions, no raises' was a no-go. It took no time for him to change jobs.

 

[RudyBob]

I love seeing companies take charge

 

[RudyBob]

It would appear that with all the "trimming" being done by IT companies, tighter laws need to be enacted to protect workers from the lack of planning on the part of the companies. It's one thing to hire seasonal or contract workers but quite another to hire somebody at a lesser wage because they are "corporate", enjoy their work at a lower cost then simply cut them to save money. It's starting to look like ALL non-managerial work forces should be unionized in order to protect the worker from corporate greed ......

Oh Brother. I can't imagine government having more control over something they know nothing about. Namely, husbandry of money

 

[erickmendes]

No offense to you guys but some comments are plain absurd...

It's not the governments job to determine how a business operates...

And honestly, if you think the GOVERNMENT is better at planning things out ahead of time, I think you may need to take your meds again. Because last time I checked, governments are chock full of waste from unplanned projects and total lack of communications.

Yes, it is. Otherwise we would be living in a corporatocracy where corporations would dictate every aspect of our lifes, or a back-to-nature anarchy utopia, just like Tyler Durden's dream. Even on a democracy with small government there's need to set rules, and business can't regulate itself, that equals to no regulation.

Forcing people (business) to buy things they don't want (labor) is wrong.

Business is not people, business needs labor and if government don't regulate how it's done we would still be working in the same 1820 conditions for 12h+ per day.

 

[RudyBob]

No offense to you guys but some comments are plain absurd...



Yes, it is. Otherwise we would be living in a corporatocracy where corporations would dictate every aspect of our lifes, or a back-to-nature anarchy utopia, just like Tyler Durden's dream. Even on a democracy with small government there's need to set rules, and business can't regulate itself, that equals to no regulation.

Corporations already have control of government. Pay attention

 

[gabelogan1324]

This is happening with the company im currently working for - they are starting theirs in June - luckily for me, ive always been remote and that will not change. I hate going to the office but I have to go once a month.

 

[opckieran]

...Otherwise we would be living in a corporatocracy where corporations would dictate every aspect of our lifes, or a back-to-nature anarchy utopia, just like Tyler Durden's dream. Even on a democracy with small government there's need to set rules, and business can't regulate itself, that equals to no regulation.

Business is not people, business needs labor and if government don't regulate how it's done we would still be working in the same 1820 conditions for 12h+ per day.

Business is literally people though. People voluntarily exchanging time, money, and goods/services. And no large corp in the West is forcing anybody into labor (unless you count prisons, which are a function of the state). People make the decision to work for those corps in the first place. If they don't like it, they shouldn't work there. They should move somewhere else. Start their own business. Get in a different field. Quit making excuses.

You gotta love this defeatism that assumes all workers are victims of circumstance and that the evil big corporations are the ones to blame so then somehow the obvious solution is to put it all in the hands of the greediest, least ethical, least efficient, most damaging, and most wasteful "corporation" of them all: The Government. No. Make your own way.

 

[erickmendes]

You gotta love this defeatism that assumes all workers are victims of circumstance and that the evil big corporations are the ones to blame so then somehow the obvious solution is to put it all in the hands of the greediest, least ethical, least efficient, most damaging, and most wasteful "corporation" of them all: The Government. No. Make your own way.

It's not about corporations being good or evil. I'm not making any moral judgement.
People are just people, individuals, ruled and/or protected by a government.

Corporations are profit seeking entities that do business on one or many industry fields.

Government creates and maintain rules on how people (work)/corporations relationship works.

I'm not making judgements about any of these 3 entities, just stating it's relations. I'm not arguing about which side is "bad".

You can't say that ants are being smashed by the big evil elephant. They will be crushed anyway if there's no form of regulation on how they will work together. You can regulate how many.

 

[waclark]

No offense to you guys but some comments are plain absurd...



Yes, it is. Otherwise we would be living in a corporatocracy where corporations would dictate every aspect of our lifes, or a back-to-nature anarchy utopia, just like Tyler Durden's dream. Even on a democracy with small government there's need to set rules, and business can't regulate itself, that equals to no regulation.


Business is not people, business needs labor and if government don't regulate how it's done we would still be working in the same 1820 conditions for 12h+ per day.

Apple and oranges. Regulating safety in business is one thing. Regulating when you can hire and fire people is something the government should stay out of. It's not their business and since they won't guarantee my profitability then they have no right to tell me who to hire or fire and when.

 

[erickmendes]

Apple and oranges. Regulating safety in business is one thing. Regulating when you can hire and fire people is something the government should stay out of. It's not their business and since they won't guarantee my profitability then they have no right to tell me who to hire or fire and when.

Well gov don't tell you who/when to hire/fire, it dictates the how. It don't garantee your profitability but it garantee that the conditions for you to achieve profitability don't change all of a sudden and your corporation burn to ashes over night.

That's to prevent situations close to what could happen on a coup... The economic set changes all of a sudden then your corporation just can't make business anymore then it will be dead in the water. So a gov to keep things work as everybody is used to is needed.

 

[ZedRM]

Dell showing once again that they can't do things that make sense, are better for the world, better for the employees and their own bottom line? How shocking. /s

 

[Jme Kerul]

It's not the governments job to determine how a business operates. When you hire into a remote only job, this is the risk you take.

And honestly, if you think the GOVERNMENT is better at planning things out ahead of time, I think you may need to take your meds again. Because last time I checked, governments are chock full of waste from unplanned projects and total lack of communications.

Government is just another employer, unions, maybe not the model from US, are the ones who are tasked to balance the labour market.

 

[wiyosaya]

Business is not people, business needs labor and if government don't regulate how it's done we would still be working in the same 1820 conditions for 12h+ per day.

I agree. If businesses had their way, workers would still be working 12h+ per day for menial pay. However, I bet most of the posters to this thread have no idea of the historical facts behind labor laws.

Corporations already have control of government. Pay attention

FTFY. Yes, that's why business frequently takes Government to court to challenge government laws. Pay attention to reality instead of conspiracy theories.

 

[VaRmeNsI]

Business is not people, business needs labor and if government don't regulate how it's done we would still be working in the same 1820 conditions for 12h+ per day.

They are made up of people, in some cases one person.

 

[RudyBob]

I agree. If businesses had their way, workers would still be working 12h+ per day for menial pay. However, I bet most of the posters to this thread have no idea of the historical facts behind labor laws.


FTFY. Yes, that's why business frequently takes Government to court to challenge government laws. Pay attention to reality instead of conspiracy theories.

Hey Wiyo....Happy Tuesday. You won't admit it but I know you know the truth which is why you spoke against it. Again Happy Tuesday old Bean

 

[Endymio]

Business is not people

On the contrary. Business IS people. Employment is nothing more than you freely bartering your labor in exchange for another person's money.

if government don't [sic] regulate how it's done we would still be working in the same 1820 conditions for 12h+ per day.

What you forget is that those 1820 conditions were far superior to the 17th century conditions of laboring 18+ hours a day in the hot fields, and then starving to death if your crop failed. Out of the entire population of the USA, only a tiny fraction (1 million) work minimum wage jobs. The other 99% are paid more and work under better conditions than the government requires. When you understand the basic economic factors as to why this is so, you'll understand just how nonsensical your original position was.

 

[lonetac]

Well gov don't tell you who/when to hire/fire, it dictates the how. It don't garantee your profitability but it garantee that the conditions for you to achieve profitability don't change all of a sudden and your corporation burn to ashes over night.

That's to prevent situations close to what could happen on a coup... The economic set changes all of a sudden then your corporation just can't make business anymore then it will be dead in the water. So a gov to keep things work as everybody is used to is needed.

Actually it does. Its called discrimination laws.

The piece of the puzzle is does not giving folks who wfh count as discrimination? Im not saying it does or doesnt but thats really the question on if the government can regulate it or not.

 

[waclark]

Well gov don't tell you who/when to hire/fire, it dictates the how. It don't garantee your profitability but it garantee that the conditions for you to achieve profitability don't change all of a sudden and your corporation burn to ashes over night.

That's to prevent situations close to what could happen on a coup... The economic set changes all of a sudden then your corporation just can't make business anymore then it will be dead in the water. So a gov to keep things work as everybody is used to is needed.

No, today the government doesn't dictate hiring and firing, at least not in a major way. But that is what some people in this discussion are proposing. That's a non-starter for me.

And I don't know what country you're from, but in the US, the government cannot guarantee that business conditions won't suddenly change. And, in fact, during Covid, the government was the one who changed business conditions by forcing everyone in to lock-down and forcing small businesses to close. Business conditions change and no government can ensure that they don't. Natural disasters, like fire in Hawaii, or foreign wars like the Ukraine and the middle-east, or even something as simple as a government official making a comment can all impact businesses.

Some regulation is absolutely necessary but having the government dictate every aspect of how to run a business would be a disaster. Like having Bernie Sanders dictate the work week be 32 hours for the same pay. No thank you.

 

[waclark]

Business is literally people though. People voluntarily exchanging time, money, and goods/services. And no large corp in the West is forcing anybody into labor (unless you count prisons, which are a function of the state). People make the decision to work for those corps in the first place. If they don't like it, they shouldn't work there. They should move somewhere else. Start their own business. Get in a different field. Quit making excuses.

You gotta love this defeatism that assumes all workers are victims of circumstance and that the evil big corporations are the ones to blame so then somehow the obvious solution is to put it all in the hands of the greediest, least ethical, least efficient, most damaging, and most wasteful "corporation" of them all: The Government. No. Make your own way.

This is a good point. I always love people who say business owners are "exploiting" the workers. In reality, as you pointed out, those workers exchange their time and skills for a paycheck. That is not being exploited. That is a fair exchange of goods and services as agreed upon by the worker and the company. No one is an indentured servant here in the US. You can walk off the job right now and go find another one. Right now we have more jobs than people across the US so finding a new job shouldn't be too hard.

 

[BogdanR]

This tug of war is really *****ic in my opinion because this is simply about the business needs not about any philosophical good vs bad.

If I apply for a different position in the same company, I need to make sure I can fulfill the requirements of that said position when I submit my application for consideration. My remote, hybrid or full on site status of my current position should make no difference in the company’s acceptance of my application.

As simple as that.