Whilst I don't know the inner workings of this decision, I'm not sure it's "wrong" on the face of it.
What I mean is we have inklings of a rotten culture at UTD albeit the players is what we know most about due to press etc.
However it could just be a sort of Jordan Peterson "clean your room" type of decision. In which case I'm all for it.
Could be wrong it's just Jim being a cnuts. But things at UTD have been lax for a while so maybe it's beginning of sorting out the culture.
The tidiness one I don't really care about, it seems a weird thing to focus on, but I'm not against making sure you don't work in a shithole.
The WFH is just a typical thing people point to when things aren't going well or try to improve something, when clearly there are far more important things that effect performance. It's a dumb power move and old hat.
INEOS have done whole audit of the club and have identified areas where we need to improve and change. Clearly the WFH policy was one that they felt had a negative impact and needed to change. They also looked at how many employees we have compared to other top clubs and want to cut that down. The club has been run like shit for too long. We're long overdue a shake up from top to bottom. I welcome anything that improves us as a club.
There's nothing wrong with your second point of trimming the fat of a big company. Dressing it up as a WFH policy being a problem is just stupid, because you'll also lose good employees as well as the ones you think are taking the piss. Not every WFH advocate is lazy and everyone who goes to the office is a harder worker.
How much experience do you have in changing the culture of massive, corporate organisations?
It's hardly focussing on the bottom when several of the highest profile executives at the club have already left their roles in the short time Ineos have been here.
Funnily enough in my old company, was a big part of my role with the consulting base. Just to clarify no where near the size of United, but still a big publicly traded fintech.
I like how they've been ruthless at exec level, that is certainly how it should be. Attacking a policy that's a benefit for most lower level workers on spurious grounds, is just dumb.
Pretty sure Dan Ashworth and Omar Berrada will be based in Manchester they'll be running the business.
Whilst I dont agree with it, unless it's in your contract wfh is at the employers discretion.
Sure, but like with every exec, I guarantee they'll get special dispensation and will be out the office a lot of the time.
Of course it's at their discretion, it's just stupid to take away a policy based on very little data backing up it's an issue. If you think people aren't working, you can discipline them and put them on performance plans. If you think people work better in person, you can just designate days where all the team should be in or strive to be and use collaboration tools. There are so many options to you apart from a blanket cancel of a policy that benefits your workers.
