Yesterday’s Detroit Free Press Article titled “Ford CEO Farley reflects on 5 years in the job and what he needs to do next” mentions a “cultural change” mandated by CEO Jim Farley himself. “The new policy [requires] salaried employees to show up four days a week in the office,” the interview reads. “It comes as the company prepares to move leadership, designers and engineers into a new world headquarters building starting later this year. It’s a move Farley has said will improve efficiency and product development.” I don’t know if this will actually markedly improve efficiency and development, but I can tell you: At least one person is seriously upset about it. Seriously.
In what has to be the cleverest bit of trolling I’ve seen in along time, someone with access to Ford Motor Company’s internal meeting-room screens has configured many of them to include the words “F**ck RTO” over top of an image showing CEO Jim Farley with a “NO” symbol over his face (that’s the big circle with a slash made famous by No Smoking campaigns).
Here is one of the hacked screens in question:
This was sent my way by an anonymous Ford employee, whom I asked about how the vibes were within the company in regards to the new mandate. “Upset level varies,” the person told me. “Some people bought homes farther away. Some people had a child, some people got a dog.”
The employee went on: “We were promised that remote work is here to stay and people built their lives around that. An about face has real negative consequences for real people.”
A Reddit post titled “Ford’s Dearborn meeting rooms hacked with anti-RTO image” states that it received the screen image from an employee and that “all panels in the building were affected.” A Redditor named Summoners_Rift says they were “Just told by a friend that Ford Racing and Roush were hit too.”
It seems screens throughout Ford have been changed over. Now that’s dedication.
But I get it! That’s a massive, massive change for employees to now have to live within ~30 miles of their office. I bet folks are having to sell homes, losing time with their families, etc etc. On the other hand, Automakers are facing press to produce, especially in the uncertain modern era where EV mandates come and go and China’s electric car-prowess looms overhead. Not to mention, Ford has spent so much money on its new headquarters; you have to wonder how big of a role that plays in the new policy.
As someone who used to engineer cars for a major automaker, my view is: I think in-person time is deeply valuable for vehicle development, but five or even four days a week is likely not necessary for most employees. Obviously, if you’re running a dyno cell or you’re a technician, you have to be near the hardware. But if I’m sitting in CAD packaging meetings all day, I can do that from home. I recall so many times the vast majority of engineers being on their laptops during meetings, barely paying attention. I bet three days a week would be enough for plenty of engineers, though again, I understand where companies like Ford are coming from. This is a tough situation that involves considerations around real estate, employee productivity, human livelihoods, talent acquisition/retention, and on and on.
Ford didn’t just suddenly make this change — the transition has been, at least on some level, gradual, as Carscoops mentioned earlier this year. From Carscoops:
Ford adopted its current hybrid model in April 2022 and has gradually increased the requirement for employees to work from the office three days a week. By increasing this to four, it believes it can improve performance.
While some employees (like the one I spoke with) may feel they were promised remote work indefinitely, to high-ups at Ford, it was likely always temporary. It’s a really tricky situation, and though I can chuckle at the brazenness of this hack, I want to emphasize that a slash through the CEO above is not funny and could be perceived by some as a threat (though it’s the “No” symbol, so I personally read it as “No Farley”). This, of course, is not in any way funny or cool, and, on a personal level, I’ve always enjoyed chatting with Farley; he seems like a smart and truly enthusiastic car-guy. Put a funny hat on him or something! The slash is not even creative. The hack (which I’m hearing might have affected Ford monitors globally), though, was.
My hero.
The hacker, not Farley,
Good lord, I just realized he looks exactly like Chris Farley. I bet he gives a hell of a motivation speech.
Well they are actual first cousins.
Yeah, the anti-wfh stuff makes no sense to me. It was the only significant quality of life improvement most companies had made in what decades, and it usually saved companies money by reducing office space costs…pride, tradition, and stupidity go a long way I guess…
It’s almost like commuting to work only to stare at a teams meeting while other people are inevitably calling in is a colossal waste of time and resources.
And you can BET YOUR ASS that most of the CEOs and Execs are ‘working’ from home most days. Not that I understand what they actually contribute. Overpaid and hypocritical, just like our politicians.
It s like going away to college. A lot of people cannot handle the freedom. I d say You HAVE TO have your guys in the office for collaboration and surveillance/supervision. Workers say – yeah i can work remote. The truth is the effectiveness of 70% of the staff is 35% less effective. Everyone has to play by the same rules. Playing favorites will destroy the team. And even if you dont agree. Its their company -Their rules. In the office 4 days a week could work.
You sure pulled a lot of stats out of your ass.
I like working without interruptions, and if I am in the zone, I’ll work until 1-2am if I’m at home.
In the office? Yeah I’m going to be braindead until 10:30am, slightly sleepy at around 3pm, and I’m outta there by 5pm.
The truth is the effectiveness of employees should be judged by their output, but since most managers are lazy/horrible, they don’t know how to do so.
Malarkey.
If you can’t implement systems that hold effectiveness as an accountable metric (I noticed you didn’t say efficiency…which is even easier to track); then your whole system is bad and needs rebuilding.
WFH is awesome because it quickly identifies the office employees that deliver and those that don’t, as well as the office-based companies that actually have a handle on their business and those whose stock I’d probably avoid. In spite of the cope by CEO’s, there are no real exceptions that I’ve seen.
lol OK, boomer.
The irony here is that everyone in my department went to college, got a degree in engineering, and therefore proved that they could handle the freedom. Soooo, yeah, that doesn’t make any sense.
Also, your numbers are garbage.
Something millions, just like the work force, does successfully year after year after year. Try coming up with some new corporate-fed line to offer opposition.
“60% of the time it works every time.”
I don’t even like the idea of remote work for myself, post-COVID hybrid classes are what drove me out of college.
I still hate the dishonest, oppressive, and generally icky “return to work” garbage. These mandates always have (non-factual) justifications that just feel so gross and desperate to control people.
It’s both demanding a return to office and demonstrating why you shouldn’t want to be there.
I don’t care one way or another about RTO, it doesn’t effect me or anyone I know. However, as a company, you need to do what you say you will, or your morale will suffer, and your company will eventually fail.
Ford’s huge so can have some bumps and be fine. But I’d suggest they start being honest with their employees, before they can’t find any.
So that 4 day work week is mandatory for all the executives and CEOs too, right?
A good leader, leads. Should be there 5 days a week!
Nine days. Nine days of the week!
This is timely as Fortune just posted an article saying 40% of CEO’s who have done RIFs in the last 2 years were disappointed that more people didn’t self terminate as the RTO mandate was in liu of RIFs. So there you have it…..
The people who self terminate are the ones who get the most done and can get easily jobs somewhere else. They may already have offers.
It’s a bit of an over-simplification, but note that the people pushing returning to the office the hardest are always managers, and usually C-level executives. Without the ability to wander around and “manage” the workers, there’s a very high risk of exposing the fact that these executives often add very little to what their business actually does (making things, serving the public, processing claims, etc.).
RTO is a RIF in a trench coat. Always.
Truth.
The people I know who work for Ford here in Dearborn have opined to me that Farley can eat shit, and that being forced to return to office when there are no offices to return to is yet another stupid ploy to get more people to quit. Which will work!
Firings without the firings. Company doesn’t have to pay unemployment or severance, company gets to downsize the workforce anyway.
Win win for the overpaid execs!
Makes you wonder if a secret email went out to employees they’d like to retain.
“Mark, disregard that last email, you can work wherever you like. Keep up the good work!”
Shortsighted blanket policies have been proven time and time again to be less than optimal for employee satisfaction and longevity.
While certain design and engineering work definitely needs to be done in person – a lot does not. Accountants, marketing, project managers and dealer liaisons should only go in on an As-needed basis – which is almost never for some of these.
I work with hardware and can’t really pull off much more than a couple of fully remote days a month so changes like this don’t really impact how I go about my job. They do make traffic worse, lead to more people coming into the office sick, and increase the number and overall grumpiness of coworkers sitting around me. No upside from my perspective.
Hmmm… This is kind of like trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube… 😉
Anyway, I see both sides of the argument regarding RTO, and I know that GM and Stellantis have a three day a week RTO, that seems rational to me, so why is Ford adding one day more than their peers? ┐(ﾟ ～ﾟ )┌
Yeah, this kind of crap is going on at many companies. My company’s job postings all said “At _____, we see the value of a flexible, hybrid work schedule” all proud and forthright right up until they day they hauled us all back into the office 5 days a week after 3 years of WFH/Hybrid/Remote. Screwed over a lot of people they hired KNOWING that those employees lived an hour or more away.
Stuff like this is what fuels rebellions and labor unions – all managment has done is trained us not to believe anything that they say, and that’s taking a MUCH larger toll on companies than any WFH/Hybrid setup was.
Same at my place. We spent money and hired a consulting firm to help us design our flexible work arrangement policy post pandemic (for some reason, lots of smart folks here, not sure why we couldn’t figure it out on our own, but I digress). We were all proud of it and it was going fine until early this year when the new EVP just axed it with no real explanation.
We were told to RTO- but over the last 4 years the physical office I’m RTOing has shrank to 1/4 its size. Wednesday I showed up, Every cube (Flex work space) and every Conf room, even 4 people posted up in the break room and someone was working from the “Mother’s” room. I slapped my badge on the reader, walked out and drove the 25 miles home so I could do work- this is the 4th time I’ve had to do this since 3 day a week RTO was mandated after Labor Day. The real kicker is that pre Covid I never had to come in more than 2 days a week…..
Hmm… maybe there is a union out there with a sense of timing that could take advantage of it here. Though they missed several opportunities already with other companies RTO moves. Been working in IT for over a decade now, and the longer its been the more I begin to think maybe its time the unionization fuel catches fire and takes off.
Most of RTO workers are technically management at most companies.
Probably all actually. If you have options and incentives, you are “management”.
I have a friend who is one of those top 1% of the top 1% programmers, the kind that designs their own languages, and can talk on the phone about one project write code for another, while debugging a third. He’s not great at problem solving, or rather he’s great at problem solving, but not great at problem definition.
Anyway, he was promised he could work from home 4 days a week, and a team was basically built around him. My job was basically defining and dividing up projects according to skills, making sure that everything was modular so that it be replaced, and translating between him and everyone else.
We got acquired, and they told him he had to work from the office. He quit, I quit, and the whole project died.
It’s not even a remotely unique story.
OT, but the difference between problem solving and problem definition is MASSIVE! The fact that most managers don’t understand the difference is very sad. I had a friend who would get bad performance reviews because when his manager would give them a project, the problem was never defined, and he would then ask 3-5 questions to ensure he knew what was needed. His manager said he was hard to work with because he “challenged” the manager’s directives. Meanwhile, he always had his department’s best on-time, on-budget rating because he didn’t waste time fixing the wrong issue.
All through COVID we had to be in office because we make things, the whole time bombarded by corporate emails about “Office of the Future ™” for other parts of the company. It was irrationally enraging.
Here we are 5 years later and everyone needs to be in office all the time, but there isn’t enough space for everyone because of “Office of the Future ™” shared desk concept. Of course, all the money spent on it was wasted.
“ I want to emphasize that a slash through the CEO above is not funny and could be perceived by some as a threat”
Boooo, throwing tomatoes ???? ???? ????
It’s important to manage liability in the present context.
To have access to garbage like Farley, you have to protect garbage like Farley. That is how “journalism” works.
ISO 7010 P043 ?
ISO 7010 P073 ?
The Organisation internationale de normalisation does not take kindly to drunkards
FUCK RTO!!!!!!! 😛
Yay glad you posted the uncensored version 😀
RTO-tards need therapy so they can stop feeling insecure and jealous.
They should’ve used the money/effort to downsize and reduce their office space. That would also save them money. Also, the office buildings can be converted to residential. there is a housing shortage in many parts of the country.
If you need to see butts in seats, you’re bad at your job.
Also, the office buildings can be converted to residential. there is a housing shortage in many parts of the country
Ahhh the radical left lunatic has appeared.. Or something stupid.
It’s funny how as both a conservative and an engineer, this makes perfect sense?
I wonder how much ego plays into this? Directors and senior management all want to see all their little busy bees humming away. Otherwise they might stop to think about their little willies.
Office spaces make terrible residential spaces. Easier to demolish the office building and start from scratch.
Yeah, offices, commercial space, and churches are hard and expensive to convert. Worth a try in sometimes, but it’s usually a way bigger project than people realize.
I wouldn’t die on this hill, but I have read that sometimes this assessment is mostly caused by bad zoning laws or unnecessary safety codes…not the physical limitations of the building itself.
Even if more true than not, I’m sure there are examples of mostly-empty skyscrapers that would make for perfectly okay residential spaces that we’re not taking advantage of, which is a shame.
It is all of it. The physical issues of the building are the primary reason. Footprints of office buildings often make it difficult to provide windows where they are needed for residential use. You end up with a big central core that can’t be utilized. All of the HVAC, plumbing, and electrical systems also need to be completely removed and redone. Often, the waste, water, and electrical services to the building need to be redone as well because office use typically has different/lower requirements than residential.
By the time it is all said and done, you end up with a building shell that can be reused at best. A shell that is far less than ideal for residential use. Since the cost of renovating is often higher than building something new, there isn’t any reason to use a shell that makes everything worse.
“Footprints of office buildings often make it difficult to provide windows where they are needed for residential use. You end up with a big central core that can’t be utilized.”
Not every residential room needs a window. Closets, laundry, bathrooms, home theatres, dining rooms, even kitchens can manage without natural lighting.
Beyond that maybe central cores in large buildings might be useful as on-site vertical retail mini malls with businesses like grocery, convenience stores, gyms, bars, clothing, laundromats, theatres, and storage lockers? If the building is big and sturdy enough maybe even some on site parking. Those applications do not need external windows. Kitchens for restaurants are a possibility too, especially on the upper levels with rooftop access for diners.
There’s also data centers, warehousing or just keep the core as as on-site commercial space.
Converting commercial space into residential is not easy but not impossible. Maybe less impossible if only the outside is converted and the core is repurposed to something closer to commercial use.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/analysis-heres-what-it-would-take-to-turn-empty-office-buildings-into-residential-housing
I have spent a lot of time working with developers and repositioning office space prior to COVID.
Not every room needs office space, but every bedroom and living room does. The inner core would be generally worthless once the outer ring was taken.
Newly built mixed-use developments are already struggling to find takers for retail space on street level, where it is most valuable. Put it up higher and without windows, and it is worthless. Using data centers and the like is typically a no-go because it is significantly less expensive to build a new building in an inexpensive light industrial area with lower taxes and the most affordable electrical rates.
Same for on-site commercial space. The interior space is just about worthless for anything other than open office layouts that give more people access to natural light. Interior spaces and basements aren’t worth much.
It is possible to convert, but the juice isn’t worth the squeeze for developers. The return on the investment to convert is lower than it is to build new.
Well then it sounds like commercial buildings are doomed to a slow, painful death. Oh well. I suppose they could always be converted into homeless shelters, flop houses and brothels.
It is all on the margins. If there is 30% more office space than the current demand, there will be a mix of lower prices, vacant space, and some demolition. As the overall population increases, the office demand may slowly increase as well.
The tough part is that a lot of buildings are owned by investment groups that invest in things like pension plans. One I worked on was owned by a company that held a lot for teachers’ pensions in multiple states. They were supposed to be a fairly safe investment, like residential real estate prior to 2008.
Where are those population increases supposed to live? Demand for residential RE is already grossly underserved. And that’s not a separate problem. As this RTO fight to end WFH is making crystal clear the health and wealth of commercial property is a lot more dependent on the availability of nearby residential living spaces than the other way around.
I agree with you 100% that the problem exists and that integrating residential, commercial, and retail together is a great idea because it reduces the demand for and cost of transportation.
A company I work with that has maintained WFH has done so largely because they spent part of the money saved from rent/real estate on providing the structure needed to work remotely. Most of that is just changing the culture and getting the right managers in place. The people who are comfortable managing a remote team. The more of that we can do, the better off we will all be, both as individual workers and as humans who share limited resources. The people who were let go were the people who couldn’t handle remote work.
The wealth of commercial property is based on the demand for commercial space, which has largely been driven by a culture of working in the same physical location. The relationship between the location of homes and offices goes both ways. Residential demand is high near where there are a lot of jobs. I have a friend who has lived in Madison, WI, for 30 years, and once Epic (medical information company) started getting huge, all the people they hired from across the country moved into town, and housing costs went through the roof.
Core commercial areas, “downtowns,” happened because being close to other businesses was necessary to exchange products and information when doing so was all physical and slow. Residential buildings would be outside of that core, and people would commute to work. The suburbs exploded due to the automobile and freeway system after WW2, but when a central downtown location was still good for business needs. This central location model also allowed access for employees from any direction, as long as geography allowed. The current ability for remote work only began 20 years ago, and the infrastructure can’t change that quickly without incurring massive costs.
WFH should be the default, but the people in charge only have experience with managing in-office staff and don’t want to change. They also, as mentioned in other comments, think it will allow them to reduce headcount on the cheap.
We need less expensive housing and less commercial space. It is just that repurposing commercial buildings isn’t generally economically a viable solution because building new is typically less expensive.
I’m willing to help if they can supply the wrecking ball and way too much dynamite.
Agreed.
Unfortunately true, but even just the land would be valuable rezoned and redeveloped for residential/mixed use from scratch.
True for newer buildings, possible for some older buildings.
https://www.multihousingnews.com/five-prominent-chicago-office-to-residential-conversions/
This is, unfortunately, very true.
Could be enough to push people into one of the startups embrace. RTO can be a major talent suck. Alot of times your best creative and intelligent people want nothing to do with an office. Meanwhile the mindless gossip mongers need to be in office and bring down productivity they often get Peter principled to middle management and cause havoc as well.
I much prefer my hybrid schedule because when I go into the office, I have to deal with those exact people. They don’t seem to do anything but just talk all day. I want to get my work done.
I worked for a smaller company a while ago the boss was the primary owner. He was a nice guy older most people were in the area but remote almost always unless they’re was something that really had to be in person. Almost all the programmers never came in. He got the idea that there should be a mid week breakfast meeting fellowship thing idk meet and talk community building nonsense thing. The second week of it one of the feral programmers stabbed someone with a plastic fork requiring a trip the emergency room because he wanted the last of a particular pastry. That was the last week it was more or less mandatory. I’ve always thought that was a strange but rather elegant end to that.
“…Ford has spent so much money on its new headquarters; you have to wonder how big of a role that plays in the new policy.”
That same situation happened in Philly; Comcast owns the two tallest buildings in the city, having completed the 2nd one right before Covid hit. Once the vaccine was available, they implemented RTO, and people were not happy. A friend is in management in accounting, and a lot of his team left – it turns out that many other accounting firms do not require you to be onsite, so the decision was easy.
Comcast was getting a lot of pressure from the city, since they had essentially promised seats in chairs in exchange for tax breaks. With so many people not commuting into the city and spending money on parking, food, beer, and entertainment, the city was taking a tax hit.
Ohhh. That’s why. This is all because the huge companies wanted to not-cheat on taxes, like sports teams.
“It’ll improve the economy because our employees will spend money here, so tax them instead of us!”
It’s thinly-disguised “company store” logic.
“We’ll pay our employees, but make them use their pay to cover our expenses!”
If the mega-corporations can’t afford to legitimately buy real estate, perhaps they should rent instead, or stop buying so much AIvocado toast.
We’re implementing a Flexible Work Location as a benefit here, but it’s limited to 20 days a year because of taxes. If you work from home in a different jurisdiction for 21 days or more, then income taxes become an issue, and honestly I think that was a huge part of the reason RTO was immediate here after COVID lockdowns ended. A lot of income tax money got shifted around from one city to another as they all figured out where peoples’ butts were when WFH.
My personal take is that I don’t really care for WFH. For me, there is a positive social component to being in the office and during the lockdown I felt the absence. I get that others like it, and I’m glad there there is a way to offer it here even in some limited capacity for those who want it, but it’s not my first choice.
Ahh the advantage of being a grumpy old man, I hate 95% of the people I’m surrounded by on a daily basis. I WFH for while during Covid and clocked way more hours. I mean where was I going in the morning, the other room? Might as well get to work, then I would regularly keep working until dinner at 6:00 rather than leaving the office at ~5:00. Our company is building a new headquarters 20 to 40 minutes farther than where we are now. Purely coincidental it’s near the CEO’s house, and farther away for most current workers. In fact I’ve only meet one person other than VP/Director level who are happy about the location. I’m going to keep reporting here until absolutely necessary, then WFH at least 2-3 day/week. I have worked for this company for 30 years and out of this office since 2014, No way I’m deleting another hour + from my personal life to chase one man’s hubris (the CEO) .
I’ve been with my company over 30 years also, and I have to say that working in the office is sort of the habit and routine that makes me comfortable. It’s also a lot easier to leave work at work this way.
This is a big part of it. I know other Metro Detroit Based OEMs were getting calls on the daily from the city leaders where all the engineers traditionally were in the office every day essentially threatening them if they didnt force people back into the office to buy food and gas etc in their city. It was a large part of the decision for RTO. Other big parts are: bad leadership that feels they cannot work well unless they see people at a desk everyday, and RTO forcing many people to quit instead of having to fire them and pay severance.
I say this every time RTOs come up. I work for a global Fortune 500 company with over 70,000 employees. I am 100% remote and there’s not even an office within 400 miles of me. Even though I work with people spread out across the globe and will never meet most of them in person, things get done. They were doing remote work before the pandemic, which helps, but it really shows just how unimportant in-person time is for a wide variety of jobs. Why commute 30+ minutes a day, each way, only to sit in front of a computer and have meetings, all of which could be accomplished on a laptop in your home. Plus, I always wasted so much time at the office. Lunch breaks, casual conversations that stretched on far too long, pointless meetings and “team building” exercises. At least when I’m at home, my down time can involve spending time with my pets, talking to my fiancee if he’s home, or doing some chores.
Not to mention the environmental impact, and wear and tear on my car. I went from driving 15k miles a year down to about 6k, just by working from home. That’s a lot of fuel I’m not burning! Working from home has been the single biggest cut to my personal carbon footprint, and I bet that’s true for a lot of folks. Beyond wasting people’s time, forcing RTO creates an entirely avoidable environmental impact, just because incompetent middle managers cant feel superior unless they can look down over people’s shoulders. Plus commuting time is unpaid, so it’s asking people to give up a decent amount of time (for me about an hour a day) just so someone feels good about butts in seats.
And I’m sorry, I can’t bring myself to feel bad for owners of the office real estate that are losing money on this. They’re richer than I’ll ever be and will continue to be regardless of what happens.
To be clear I know there’s plenty of jobs where hybrid or in-person time is required. But I’ve been in advertising/marketing/data analytics for about a decade and every single position I held before this one could have been remote with no drawbacks.
Just goes to show how much wasted real estate there is in this country.
I’m not sure that pointing out why the car company is dumb to enforce RTO by citing how much less you drive by working from home is the flex you’re looking for
I wasn’t “looking for” a flex, of course car companies have an interest in making people go back to commuting. That doesn’t mean it’s good for workers or the environment.
I worked an ad/marketing-adjacent job for a few years. Going in was mandatory, even though my team was 4 people in an office of 60. It was awful because we had to be online at 9am sharp, commuting cost $12/day in transit fees and took 45 minutes, and no commuter benefits (ie. contributing to a tax free fund, etc.)
Now I’m at a company that does a mix. My position is full remote, since I’m more than 15 miles from the office, and for the folks who have to go in, the policy is “Arrive when you can, leave when you need to”
Yeah the ad agency I started off at was a lot like that. And awful pay. They only let me work from home (instead of hybrid) after the pandemic because they knew I’d leave if they wouldn’t. It’s not a great time to be an ad agency, I’m so glad I got out of there when I did.
Yeah, the absurd waste of resources around commuting is another massive strike against RTO mandates.
Fords gotta justify that new office somehow. Same thing happened to one of my family members when their office got renovated, although they aren’t in the auto industry.
But anywho, as a tail-end millennial engineer in the auto industry who primarily works on CAD, mostly remote is fine for me. Not to dive into too much copium, an overwhelming majority of my work can be achieved without being chained to a desk so I get the frustration.
My flexible work arrangement was rescinded “until next year” which definitely means forever. In our case, leadership does not want to fill vacant positions, so there’s not enough people to keep the lights on if some of us work from home or have condensed schedules. Leadership, of course, is happy to continue to allow themselves flexible work arrangements.
All these companies deserve to lose some good people over these dumb rules.
But they don’t care. They want workers they can control more than they want smart, independent thinkers.
And to be clear, I am not even a huge fan of WFH. I’ve been doing it for years now and I find it very isolating sometimes, but I also see some huge benefits for it. The biggest issue is that these companies were quick to adopt WFH when it was beneficial to them. They’d spout stuff like “our people are our biggest asset” and other BS like that. But now that they think they can squeeze another 1.3% of productivity out of their already over-worked employees, they are quick to abandon any agreements they made in the past.
Of course it doesn’t help that there are countless videos online of stupid fucks showing how they are goofing off when they are supposed to be WFH.
Given that Ford can’t manage to build a reliable product, that they have a non-stop rolling list of recalls, have- like all of the other American automakers- eliminated their lineups except giganto-sized trucks and SUVs they should be glad they have jobs.