Paycom is not the only tech company that has taken its strategy. There are definite benefits to working in the office and I'd say it is not an industry trend to save money on real estate but rather it is a carrot to get talent that otherwise would not relocate to said city.

the only thing I find ridiculous on Paycom's part is the lack of notice, which is something to be salty about despite the babysitting apps available.

I would disagree. Cities all over the US have had a significant amount of office space be left over the last few years. As 5 year leases start ending, you're going to see more of this too. If there's no room to sublet, then companies have held on to the spaces out of legal requirement. But that doesn't mean that they are active. There are also accounting rules that can be applied to a lease to "dark" the space. OKC is no stranger to this market. There are examples all over town of buildings that lost tenants over the last year that just aren't coming back because the employees are going to stay remote. And yes the cost savings can be significant.

Anecdotally, i can say my experience has matched the pattern. We had just over 1M square feet at the start of the pandemic. We've had some M&A activity since then that would have even added more. We've cu that down to about a 1/3 of that by closing smaller regional offices and reducing the physical footprint in some pretty big markets like even Chicago. OKC was part of this. OKC went from 90k sq ft to 15k. Other operational offices had similar or even larger reductions. Basically, if you had to go in during COVID, that's about all that is in the office now (you have to touch the mail/physically perform a task in person). Or if for some reason, a contract stipulated (overseas) that the person had to be in the offices. The offices that remained, turned more in to collaboration spaces with "hotel" offices/desks.

Like I said, i've seen this same pattern being repeated all over the city. Our old location at 7725 Connect, had another 100ksq ft of space vacated specifically because those other companies went remote. Most of those spaces were less than 5 years old. The big player staying there now is Paycom taking up room to put butts in these seats while their buildings are completed, and also government contract firm, CACI. The new building we went to claimed space from Baker Hughes, who had abandoned ~60k in that building. Other floors there are similarly closed from even law offices that went mostly home and again, only created a collaboration space to meet with clients.

So its a SOLID trend. And I would be shocked if it stopped. Not everyone will do this, but it something people (and businesses) are going to be aware of when hiring.

Apparently Paycom is no longer allowing COVID positive employees to work from home, they now much take PTO/Sick time for 5 days before returning to work. Nevermind they have the capability to work from home and this has been the process up until now.

Apparently Paycom is no longer allowing COVID positive employees to work from home, they now much take PTO/Sick time for 5 days before returning to work. Nevermind they have the capability to work from home and this has been the process up until now.

It's a terrible idea to feel the pressure to work while ill, covid or otherwise.

I hated when sick people would come in to the office, as to not burn their 'vacation' time.

Thanks bro for spreading your sickness!

Fed gov needs to require organizations provide paid sick leave to employees for these situations.

I would disagree. Cities all over the US have had a significant amount of office space be left over the last few years. As 5 year leases start ending, you're going to see more of this too. If there's no room to sublet, then companies have held on to the spaces out of legal requirement. But that doesn't mean that they are active. There are also accounting rules that can be applied to a lease to "dark" the space. OKC is no stranger to this market. There are examples all over town of buildings that lost tenants over the last year that just aren't coming back because the employees are going to stay remote. And yes the cost savings can be significant.

Anecdotally, i can say my experience has matched the pattern. We had just over 1M square feet at the start of the pandemic. We've had some M&A activity since then that would have even added more. We've cu that down to about a 1/3 of that by closing smaller regional offices and reducing the physical footprint in some pretty big markets like even Chicago. OKC was part of this. OKC went from 90k sq ft to 15k. Other operational offices had similar or even larger reductions. Basically, if you had to go in during COVID, that's about all that is in the office now (you have to touch the mail/physically perform a task in person). Or if for some reason, a contract stipulated (overseas) that the person had to be in the offices. The offices that remained, turned more in to collaboration spaces with "hotel" offices/desks.

Like I said, i've seen this same pattern being repeated all over the city. Our old location at 7725 Connect, had another 100ksq ft of space vacated specifically because those other companies went remote. Most of those spaces were less than 5 years old. The big player staying there now is Paycom taking up room to put butts in these seats while their buildings are completed, and also government contract firm, CACI. The new building we went to claimed space from Baker Hughes, who had abandoned ~60k in that building. Other floors there are similarly closed from even law offices that went mostly home and again, only created a collaboration space to meet with clients.

So it’s a SOLID trend. And I would be shocked if it stopped. Not everyone will do this, but it something people (and businesses) are going to be aware of when hiring.
Return to office Must be a Seattle and Bay Area thing then.

It's a terrible idea to feel the pressure to work while ill, covid or otherwise.

I hated when sick people would come in to the office, as to not burn their 'vacation' time.

Thanks bro for spreading your sickness!

Fed gov needs to require organizations provide paid sick leave to employees for these situations.



gov contractors stopped that practice last summer some time .. and most have gone back to people just having to use their sick time if they are one of the few companies that offer it .. or just use PTO

Return to office Must be a Seattle and Bay Area thing then.

lol it is an everywhere thing and the speed of it is increasing

It's definitely a trend to re-office people, but the way Paycom went about it was shady. Go check out their recent Glassdoor reviews by employees.

Speaking of the trend.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/18/business/citi-work-from-home-jane-fraser/index.html

I wouldn't mind working in the office full time depending on the type of environment the organization has. If it actually promotes a culture of collaboration and knowledge transfer then that's great. If its just to promote pointless meetings where you accomplish nothing and the only reason is to micromanage you then that's organization I am not going to consider. The organization I worked pre pandemic had a great environment for collaboration, it actually suffered when it went to virtual.

Another thing though is that half of these organizations are global companies have offices working with other offices across the globe. These are already virtual by nature.

Speaking of the trend.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/18/business/citi-work-from-home-jane-fraser/index.html

I wouldn't mind working in the office full time depending on the type of environment the organization has. If it actually promotes a culture of collaboration and knowledge transfer then that's great. If its just to promote pointless meetings where you accomplish nothing and the only reason is to micromanage you then that's organization I am not going to consider. The organization I worked pre pandemic had a great environment for collaboration, it actually suffered when it went to virtual.

Another thing though is that half of these organizations are global companies have offices working with other offices across the globe. These are already virtual by nature.

well it's certainly not for everyone. and i actually think citi is going about it the right way. if people aren't performing, then bring them back. but those that are performing or excelling. leave them alone and let them continue to perform or excel. Citi does allow for in office, if you choose, as well.

I don't know enough to speak to the situation at Paycom, but the way they are alleged to have handled this is the most Oklahoma thing ever.

Very few Oklahoma companies aspire to be great places to work. Er, they want the recognition without providing the conditions necessary.

I continue to hear horror stories. I heard one yesterday from a person who lost her mom and was forced to use her last vacation day for the funeral. This is at a very big name, well-known company.

I don't know enough to speak to the situation at Paycom, but the way they are alleged to have handled this is the most Oklahoma thing ever.

Very few Oklahoma companies aspire to be great places to work. Er, they want the recognition without providing the conditions necessary.

I continue to hear horror stories. I heard one yesterday from a person who lost her mom and was forced to use her last vacation day for the funeral. This is at a very big name, well-known company.

That's terrible. Every place I've worked has bereavement leave for precisely that reason.

I continue to hear horror stories. I heard one yesterday from a person who lost her mom and was forced to use her last vacation day for the funeral. This is at a very big name, well-known company.

what company?

I don't know enough to speak to the situation at Paycom, but the way they are alleged to have handled this is the most Oklahoma thing ever.

Very few Oklahoma companies aspire to be great places to work. Er, they want the recognition without providing the conditions necessary.

I continue to hear horror stories. I heard one yesterday from a person who lost her mom and was forced to use her last vacation day for the funeral. This is at a very big name, well-known company.

Not sure if there are tenure requirements, but Paycom provides 3 days bereavement if you lose a pet, I think 5 if you lose an extended relative or friend, 10 if you lose a direct family member, so that story is pretty suspect.

In other news Paycom did go back to being degree required for a lot of the higher paying customer service positions, so that's another change that has occurred that is different than some things I've said up thread.

I was talking with someone today and the phrase "another person that's mad at America and blaming Paycom" was said and I think that represents at least a portion of the stories being shared out there. Glassdoor reviews used to have us over 4.0 stars so recent events have hurt us for sure. There are obviously hundreds of people who disagree with return to office, many are leaving, some are going to grit it out and see if it can work for them. I can understand the concerns about the timing and approach on some of the recent RTO decisions, but from a higher level it's not an unreasonable approach to be RTO now and reassess WFH at a later date. It's unfortunate some employees have been caught in the cross fire of the decision and Paycom will most certainly pay a cost for that, but that doesn't mean that it's a ticket to irrelevance as some have stated throughout this ordeal.

I guess I’m surprised people are just now going back to the office. I work in the financial field and most if not all the people I work with at various companies went back to the office at least a year ago. I’m aware other states were slow but really didn’t know there were places around here that still hadn’t done that.

Man, if people are hating on and OKC company being conservative with their WFH policy, imagine what they should be saying about silicon valley and Seattle companies making people come back to the office...

My employer in Chicago just told us today we have to be back in the office starting Feb 6th. Some people were upset about it but they told us if we didn't like it we were welcome to look for other employment. Looks like the party is over.

Man, if people are hating on and OKC company being conservative with their WFH policy, imagine what they should be saying about silicon valley and Seattle companies making people come back to the office...

The stink is happening everywhere. Lots of tech is letting people go from the surges during COVID. So the leadership of those companies are taking the outdated model of "if you dont like it, then we'll fire you". Like others have said, if you can show there's some quantifiable reason to need it rather than just beacuse you want people there, then ok. But most of these places, like PayCom, don't have a good reason. Larger companies (like my own) that work internationally, are remote to most of the people they interact with every day. So being in an office serves no purpose....there's no one else there that you directly really work with anyway.

Unfortunately for the employees, the market is such that while employers are still hunting for employees, they are easing off on those concessions to get them. The power dynamic is most assuredly moving back to the employer. Younger employees have a statistical amount of people that are taking the corporate stance on global or personal issues to heart when deciding where to even apply. Personally, I like that, but I don't think it's a long-term strategy that will sustain. They'll run out of places to work. We'll see if WFH ends up being one of those. The "laptop class" at least has the option. The blue collar folks, well they don't and never did. So while we piss and moan about it, we also need to keep perspective.

The stink is happening everywhere. Lots of tech is letting people go from the surges during COVID. So the leadership of those companies are taking the outdated model of "if you dont like it, then we'll fire you". Like others have said, if you can show there's some quantifiable reason to need it rather than just beacuse you want people there, then ok. But most of these places, like PayCom, don't have a good reason. Larger companies (like my own) that work internationally, are remote to most of the people they interact with every day. So being in an office serves no purpose....there's no one else there that you directly really work with anyway.

Unfortunately for the employees, the market is such that while employers are still hunting for employees, they are easing off on those concessions to get them. The power dynamic is most assuredly moving back to the employer. Younger employees have a statistical amount of people that are taking the corporate stance on global or personal issues to heart when deciding where to even apply. Personally, I like that, but I don't think it's a long-term strategy that will sustain. They'll run out of places to work. We'll see if WFH ends up being one of those. The "laptop class" at least has the option. The blue collar folks, well they don't and never did. So while we piss and moan about it, we also need to keep perspective.

It could be worse for them than having to return to the office. Microsoft let 10K go, and today Google is letting 12K go.

I think it is a way to reduce payroll by forcing people back in office. They just hope they quit so they can do less layoffs.

It could be worse for them than having to return to the office. Microsoft let 10K go, and today Google is letting 12K go.

“Others have it worse than you so stop griping” is among the most illogical reasons for accepting things you don’t like. Acknowledging your situation could be worse while desiring better conditions aren’t mutually exclusive.

(my comment isn’t directed at Paycom or “return-to-work” policy; I don’t work there, know anyone that does, or been given a return-to-work directive that I disagreed with, so I can’t speak to any of that.)

Not sure if there are tenure requirements, but Paycom provides 3 days bereavement if you lose a pet, I think 5 if you lose an extended relative or friend, 10 if you lose a direct family member, so that story is pretty suspect.

In other news Paycom did go back to being degree required for a lot of the higher paying customer service positions, so that's another change that has occurred that is different than some things I've said up thread.

I was talking with someone today and the phrase "another person that's mad at America and blaming Paycom" was said and I think that represents at least a portion of the stories being shared out there. Glassdoor reviews used to have us over 4.0 stars so recent events have hurt us for sure. There are obviously hundreds of people who disagree with return to office, many are leaving, some are going to grit it out and see if it can work for them. I can understand the concerns about the timing and approach on some of the recent RTO decisions, but from a higher level it's not an unreasonable approach to be RTO now and reassess WFH at a later date. It's unfortunate some employees have been caught in the cross fire of the decision and Paycom will most certainly pay a cost for that, but that doesn't mean that it's a ticket to irrelevance as some have stated throughout this ordeal.

The story is true and it does not involve Paycom. Please reread my post. I have no idea what Paycom does, only that they seem to have handled the work from home situation poorly.

The story is true and it does not involve Paycom. Please reread my post. I have no idea what Paycom does, only that they seem to have handled the work from home situation poorly.

Maybe they have, but most companies have. Heck, most major companies all over the country are backtracking on their WFH promises. Or laying off tens of thousands, and still making people come back to work. To me, bashing an Oklahoma company for wanting people in office while not acknowledging that Seattle and San Fran and LA companies are doing the same seems hypocritical.

I am not a fan of forcing people back, but I've accepted it, since it is happening everywhere. There is nothing wrong with wanting employees in office. And I also think they will be far more lenient than the Stalin-like opinion people have of them. Could be wrong, but I don't think they are wanting to let a bunch of people go right now.

I think it is a way to reduce payroll by forcing people back in office. They just hope they quit so they can do less layoffs.

They seemed to have a lot of QA employees for a product line that should be pretty mature by now? I mean just lookup Paycom employees on linkin and you see a lot of QA.

Paycom does constant development and release rollouts, you'd need a solid QA team for that.

The story is true and it does not involve Paycom. Please reread my post. I have no idea what Paycom does, only that they seem to have handled the work from home situation poorly.

then what Large company was it? i don't know any that don't provide bereavement leave for a parent of spouse

I think it is a way to reduce payroll by forcing people back in office. They just hope they quit so they can do less layoffs.

Not everyone that wfh is efficient, can work without supervision, is motivated to improve, is easily integrated with the entire team, pushes themselves to do their best, etc. etc. Maybe those are the ones they would like to bring back in to help, or maybe they quit.

One of the factors that is not talked about enough when it comes to WFH is the legal exposure companies are exposed to when employees are working in localities that a company is not aware of or prepared to facilitate. Employers are required to manage payroll taxes in relation to both where an employee lives AND works. So an employee deciding to go work in Miami during the Winter and then return to Denver in the spring has a material effect on the business and can even open them up to legal issues in these unknown jurisdictions. If employees really want to be able to WFH, they should be working with their elected officials to create legislation that moves responsibility for correct payroll taxation from the employer to the employee. Unfortunately, most employers have problems understanding how taxes should work so employees seem much less likely to get it.

One of the factors that is not talked about enough when it comes to WFH is the legal exposure companies are exposed to when employees are working in localities that a company is not aware of or prepared to facilitate. Employers are required to manage payroll taxes in relation to both where an employee lives AND works. So an employee deciding to go work in Miami during the Winter and then return to Denver in the spring has a material effect on the business and can even open them up to legal issues in these unknown jurisdictions. If employees really want to be able to WFH, they should be working with their elected officials to create legislation that moves responsibility for correct payroll taxation from the employer to the employee. Unfortunately, most employers have problems understanding how taxes should work so employees seem much less likely to get it.

As the past year has shown, there are also innumerable IP security / trade secret issues presented when a company or gov. entity allows wfh. Very easy for info to fall into the wrong hands.

As the past year has shown, there are also innumerable IP security / trade secret issues presented when a company or gov. entity allows wfh. Very easy for info to fall into the wrong hands.

If we're talking specific to PayCom, they aren't unique in their field. There are a million other companies out there (and to be frank, most of them are better at it than PayCom). Any company worth its salt had some sort of attack during COVID. How well they were prepared for that attack, determined if you heard about it or if it had any meaningful impact for them. But that's a daily occurrence these days. If your IT Security team isn't monitoring all vectors at all hours of the day, you're asking for it. So that argument for returning to work, isn't really valid. You're just as vulnerable in the office with even the most basic controls in place on a VPN. Thinking otherwise just is a false security blanket feeling.

As for corporate espionage, yeah it happens. Yes it's easier for someone to come over to your house and look at your screen to see what you're doing or for you to record it. But IP laws here are pretty strong too. So that's pretty likely to be prosecuted if anyone tries to make use of that IP. But that's extremely rare. And for someone in an industry like PayCom, again their IP isn't unique so there's nothing worth stealing that someone else isn't already doing (and better). They're a mid-level HR time/payroll organization. They're not reinventing the wheel here.

Now to other points above about the QA process. Well Paycom has lost enough databases and screwed up enough payrolls that maybe they want everyone back because they couldn't come up with a better process to correct those slips. And those are issues that have come up in the last year where the PayCom employees mentioned those things here and in other places. You dont lose a database because you had great IT practices in place (like simple snapshots and not just replication).

If we're talking specific to PayCom, they aren't unique in their field. There are a million other companies out there (and to be frank, most of them are better at it than PayCom). Any company worth its salt had some sort of attack during COVID. How well they were prepared for that attack, determined if you heard about it or if it had any meaningful impact for them. But that's a daily occurrence these days. If your IT Security team isn't monitoring all vectors at all hours of the day, you're asking for it. So that argument for returning to work, isn't really valid. You're just as vulnerable in the office with even the most basic controls in place on a VPN. Thinking otherwise just is a false security blanket feeling.

As for corporate espionage, yeah it happens. Yes it's easier for someone to come over to your house and look at your screen to see what you're doing or for you to record it. But IP laws here are pretty strong too. So that's pretty likely to be prosecuted if anyone tries to make use of that IP. But that's extremely rare. And for someone in an industry like PayCom, again their IP isn't unique so there's nothing worth stealing that someone else isn't already doing (and better). They're a mid-level HR time/payroll organization. They're not reinventing the wheel here.

Now to other points above about the QA process. Well Paycom has lost enough databases and screwed up enough payrolls that maybe they want everyone back because they couldn't come up with a better process to correct those slips. And those are issues that have come up in the last year where the PayCom employees mentioned those things here and in other places. You dont lose a database because you had great IT practices in place (like simple snapshots and not just replication).

May not be unique in their field, but all of the other companies in their field are bringing people back to the office, as well. I wish people here would quit making it seem like Paycom is the only company ending their WFH program. I know it's coll to bash everything Oklahoma on here, but there are far more Silicon Valley companies bringing their employees back than anyone ever thought would.

May not be unique in their field, but all of the other companies in their field are bringing people back to the office, as well. I wish people here would quit making it seem like Paycom is the only company ending their WFH program. I know it's coll to bash everything Oklahoma on here, but there are far more Silicon Valley companies bringing their employees back than anyone ever thought would.

A substantial amount of QA/development positions are still either fully remote or at the very least hybrid. I think a ton of the pushback has been because Paycom sprung it on employees so suddenly without warning, leaving a ton of people to scramble to figure things out without any help. Working at the office full time would have been more palatable if the company communicated things better and gave employees more time to prepare. I don’t blame them for being upset.

I’ve heard Paycom was initially going to announce it after Christmas but only moved it up because some employees were moved to a separate building to make room and the word got out. The reasoning for going back to the office being a vague reason like “better communication and collaboration” seems funny with that context. QA are currently in the office full time but the developers don’t go back until March. Good collaboration.

May not be unique in their field, but all of the other companies in their field are bringing people back to the office, as well. I wish people here would quit making it seem like Paycom is the only company ending their WFH program. I know it's coll to bash everything Oklahoma on here, but there are far more Silicon Valley companies bringing their employees back than anyone ever thought would.

People probably aren't keeping spreadsheets with every company (or every company in a particular field) and their WFH policies and how they have shifted. Paycom is a large and very visible employer in OKC and this is a message board specifically regarding OKC. People aren't dogpiling Paycom here because they're just looking to criticize Paycom or OKC employers in particular. They are just what is visible to most members of this board.

If you think ending WFH is good or fine or a non-issue or whatever that's fair and your prerogative. But people who think WFH should stick around are allowed to criticize a particular company for ending it and they shouldn't be required to list everyone company ever (or every company in the same field) that has also ended it in order to do so.

A substantial amount of QA/development positions are still either fully remote or at the very least hybrid. I think a ton of the pushback has been because Paycom sprung it on employees so suddenly without warning, leaving a ton of people to scramble to figure things out without any help. Working at the office full time would have been more palatable if the company communicated things better and gave employees more time to prepare. I don’t blame them for being upset.

I’ve heard Paycom was initially going to announce it after Christmas but only moved it up because some employees were moved to a separate building to make room and the word got out. The reasoning for going back to the office being a vague reason like “better communication and collaboration” seems funny with that context. QA are currently in the office full time but the developers don’t go back until March. Good collaboration.

Collaboration can be WITHIN teams, or BETWEEN teams. Moving people around within the buildings can be a legitimate reorganization of the logistics of the work. Sometimes short term moves don't make much sense to those who aren't privileged to know or understand the long term moves.

Sometimes info isn't shared because there may be some groups (or individuals) who would be adversely affected in order to make the entire system better. I once worked for a large corp who tried to be transparent and one group who didn't like the plan (even though it benefitted the majority and the company) sabotaged the product in an attempt to "punish" management. It was very expensive, negatively affected the customers for a couple of years, and did not change what the company ultimately had to do. It is amazing what some will do to protect their little realm. So, being totally transparent isn't always being most responsible.

A substantial amount of QA/development positions are still either fully remote or at the very least hybrid. I think a ton of the pushback has been because Paycom sprung it on employees so suddenly without warning, leaving a ton of people to scramble to figure things out without any help. W.

what would there have been to " scramble and figure out?

One of the factors that is not talked about enough when it comes to WFH is the legal exposure companies are exposed to when employees are working in localities that a company is not aware of or prepared to facilitate. Employers are required to manage payroll taxes in relation to both where an employee lives AND works. So an employee deciding to go work in Miami during the Winter and then return to Denver in the spring has a material effect on the business and can even open them up to legal issues in these unknown jurisdictions. If employees really want to be able to WFH, they should be working with their elected officials to create legislation that moves responsibility for correct payroll taxation from the employer to the employee. Unfortunately, most employers have problems understanding how taxes should work so employees seem much less likely to get it.

Sounds like a good opportunity for a company to offer a software solution that helps with the complexities of payroll processing and taxation.

People probably aren't keeping spreadsheets with every company (or every company in a particular field) and their WFH policies and how they have shifted. Paycom is a large and very visible employer in OKC and this is a message board specifically regarding OKC. People aren't dogpiling Paycom here because they're just looking to criticize Paycom or OKC employers in particular. They are just what is visible to most members of this board.

If you think ending WFH is good or fine or a non-issue or whatever that's fair and your prerogative. But people who think WFH should stick around are allowed to criticize a particular company for ending it and they shouldn't be required to list everyone company ever (or every company in the same field) that has also ended it in order to do so.

Maybe so. But I think those who thought true WFH would be permanent are pie in the sky. Just my opinion. Trying to have your cake and eat it too rarely works out. I think Paycom should have given more notice, yes. But, I also think they aren't going to fire people as quickly as people think. Could be wrong, but they have not normally had large layoffs. So why start now?

what would there have been to " scramble and figure out?

Well, childcare for one. It’s hard to find childcare with only 2-3 weeks notice. Paycom explicitly told newer employees that the hybrid model was permanent only to change course. Employees have families and it affects them as well.

Collaboration can be WITHIN teams, or BETWEEN teams. Moving people around within the buildings can be a legitimate reorganization of the logistics of the work. Sometimes short term moves don't make much sense to those who aren't privileged to know or understand the long term moves.

Sometimes info isn't shared because there may be some groups (or individuals) who would be adversely affected in order to make the entire system better. I once worked for a large corp who tried to be transparent and one group who didn't like the plan (even though it benefitted the majority and the company) sabotaged the product in an attempt to "punish" management. It was very expensive, negatively affected the customers for a couple of years, and did not change what the company ultimately had to do. It is amazing what some will do to protect their little realm. So, being totally transparent isn't always being most responsible.

If Paycom is like other software companies (not sure if they are) then QA works directly with the development team and collaborates with them daily. If the devs aren’t required to be in office yet, then who are they “collaborating” with in the meantime? The vending machines?

Apparently, most meetings are still being conducted via Zoom or Teams since not everyone is back at the office yet full time. And even when people are all at the office, they’re still conducted virtually. Seems efficient.

People are allowed to like or dislike WFH policies and in the end, this doesn’t affect me since I don’t work at Paycom. However, I do WFH for a software company based out of state and these policies are just bizarre to me.

If Paycom is like other software companies (not sure if they are) then QA works directly with the development team and collaborates with them daily. If the devs aren’t required to be in office yet, then who are they “collaborating” with in the meantime? The vending machines?

Apparently, most meetings are still being conducted via Zoom or Teams since not everyone is back at the office yet full time. And even when people are all at the office, they’re still conducted virtually. Seems efficient.

People are allowed to like or dislike WFH policies and in the end, this doesn’t affect me since I don’t work at Paycom. However, I do WFH for a software company based out of state and these policies are just bizarre to me.

It's all strictly performative. Management wants to see people in their giant office buildings. There's no other tangible benefit to requiring people to be in the office, when they've been WFH the past 3 years.

Shouldn't these recent posts be better suited for Business and Employers?.......

Sounds like a good opportunity for a company to offer a software solution that helps with the complexities of payroll processing and taxation.

:lol2:

Unfortunately the employee has to participate. Employers are still on the hook, evening the employee never informs the employer. So it doesn't matter how good the software is if the employee doesn't do their part.

Man, the account the Lost Ogle shared sounds horrible. What a nightmare.

https://thelostogle.com/2023/01/23/paycom-ceo-addressing-employee-concerns-by-hiring-new-pr-supervisor

What public transit options are available to commute to and from their main campus?

Are employees expected in to the main campus tomorrow with our snow storm incoming?

What public transit options are available to commute to and from their main campus?

Are employees expected in to the main campus tomorrow with our snow storm incoming?

Closest public transit is the 005 that goes to Mercy and then back down Western. Not really that close.

OKC EEs can work from home tomorrow.

:lol2:

Unfortunately the employee has to participate. Employers are still on the hook, evening the employee never informs the employer. So it doesn't matter how good the software is if the employee doesn't do their part.

Which is kind of funny, too, because the whole Paycom model is to give employees more control through their employee self service app.

Which is paid for by the employer.

Nothing like good old unbiased clickbait journalism like the Lost Ogle. Impressive how they fit Swadley’s into the article, though.

Definitely a good deal that the wfh phenomenon was short lived. It was fixing to completely crash the CRE market. Fallout would have made 2008 look rather pedestrian.

Change is hard, but often times necessary. Things are shifting back and it's certainly not just Paycom. If you work in tech right now, just be glad we/re in Oklahoma. My sister worked for Paycom for several years and I've had quite a few past clients and even a current one listing right now. I also got deep in interview process several years ago with them but mainly to appease my wife knowing I was going to plunge into real estate. I get it, but at same time it's typical corporate stuff. Bottom line Paycom has helped a ton of employees with great opportunities they may not have otherwise had over the years. I am so, so glad I did not jump in the corporate world , would not have worked I needed to do my own thing.

Which is kind of funny, too, because the whole Paycom model is to give employees more control through their employee self service app.

Which is paid for by the employer.
Their software doesn’t give employees policy or management authority. It just lets them administrate existing policies as it relates to their own situation. Total apples and oranges.

What public transit options are available to commute to and from their main campus?

Are employees expected in to the main campus tomorrow with our snow storm incoming?
In the US the employer has never been responsible for door to door transit to the job and back. There are a few Northern European countries that are more socialist leaning like the Netherlands who do incorporate some requirements. Usually it is if you hire someone living a certain distance away. I don’t see that ever happening in the US though.

Definitely a good deal that the wfh phenomenon was short lived. It was fixing to completely crash the CRE market. Fallout would have made 2008 look rather pedestrian.

how was WFH options even remotely close to "fixing to completely crash the CRE market?" companies were still holding on to the real estate. they were just slowing their future growth plans with regard to needing more space.

how was WFH options even remotely close to "fixing to completely crash the CRE market?" companies were still holding on to the real estate. they were just slowing their future growth plans with regard to needing more space.

I would imagine the amount of leases that wouldn't have been renewed on leveraged properties would have caused owners to default and banks to get absolutely hammered.

I would imagine the amount of leases that wouldn't have been renewed on leveraged properties would have caused owners to default and banks to get absolutely hammered.

but that assumes that if companies were going to drop these properties, they would be in situations where everyone was WFH, and that they would be dropping all the properties in a very short time, rather than over a few years. and neither of those situations have been proven to exist. even in companies that went mostly work from home, there is and always will be a need for some to remain in office, for most companies. so they aren't going to be dropping all of their space, and the phasing in of this would have been slowly, because no company would have wanted to be in the situation where they dropped a bunch of leases and then for some reason need to start bringing back in more people and not able to find locations. It also would imply that a majority of businesses would remain WFH, and that was never a realistic option either.

so again i ask, how was WFH options even remotely close to "fixing to completely crash the CRE market"?

It's all strictly performative. Management wants to see people in their giant office buildings. There's no other tangible benefit to requiring people to be in the office, when they've been WFH the past 3 years.

completely disagree performance of lots of employees suffer with WFH

so again i ask, how was WFH options even remotely close to "fixing to completely crash the CRE market"?[/QUOTE]

It is amazing that three years in, there is no consensus yet on WFH. Owner-occupied building owners will obviously not expand if their workforce doesn't show. The multi-tenant office buildings may have a delayed effect. It would logical to assume that after some period of time with below-average worker occupancy, tenants would downsize their space to save money. You see that in downtown OKC. I've seen national studies using keycard data reflecting 50% - 60% worker occupancy with San Francisco being very low, around 35%.

It will be interesting to see if the recession/layoffs beginning to be seen nationwide will have any effect on worker's power regarding WFH

In the US the employer has never been responsible for door to door transit to the job and back. There are a few Northern European countries that are more socialist leaning like the Netherlands who do incorporate some requirements. Usually it is if you hire someone living a certain distance away. I don’t see that ever happening in the US though.

That will obviously never happen in the US but it is a fantastic idea. It would encourage companies to build near already existing infrastructure and transit. Most importantly, it would would discourage companies from setting up shop in far flung areas with little infrastructure and then asking for public money to pay for their own poor location selection and lack of planning.

completely disagree performance of lots of employees suffer with WFH

I'm SHOCKED you believe this. JK. Seriously though, my company is entirely remote with people in four states and one international worker and we do just fine. We save a ton of time we would otherwise spend commuting to an office. And the dirty secret is that when your office is in your home, you're never completely off work.

completely disagree performance of lots of employees suffer with WFH

I'd argue the performance of those employees probably is also lacking when they're in the office, and probably should never have been WFH to begin with. Anyone who has successfully and productively WFH the past 3 years can see this for what it is, theatrics to please management.

completely disagree performance of lots of employees suffer with WFH

i mean, based upon my first hand experience, those that suffered with WFH, where also the ones that suffered motivation issues in office, that most managers just overlooked or ignored. WFH, just made it more obvious. All of my team members, and across my whole department, those that were the high performers in Office, were hitting equal if not hirer marks in WFH, because they weren't hit with as many distractions, like 1 hour meets, that could have been an e-mail, etc.

i mean, based upon my first hand experience, those that suffered with WFH, where also the ones that suffered motivation issues in office, that most managers just overlooked or ignored. WFH, just made it more obvious. All of my team members, and across my whole department, those that were the high performers in Office, were hitting equal if not hirer marks in WFH, because they weren't hit with as many distractions, like 1 hour meets, that could have been an e-mail, etc.

i don't disagree with that

the high performance self motivated employee is going to thrive either way .. sadly most large org don't have the want/ ability to let some people wfh and other have to be in the office ..