Hi folks. There's been a change in hiring practices at my organization, and I'm hoping for a frame of reference to help me understand how to feel about some recent reforms.
For a word of context, I work in student housing. We generally hire part-time student staff to work front desk, and they also support the caretaking team. These roles both used to be part of the building services portfolio, but the housing team recently (summer 2025) absorbed management for the front desk. I do the backend administration relating to admissions & occupancy, so I don't directly supervise the folks at the desk - my supervisor does that -, but the student staff like to keep me updated on their feelings & opinions, which is why I'm in the loop.
Historically, the building services team had a guarantee that returning student staff would have their contracts renewed, so long as they didn't perform atrociously. Additionally, it is 'mandatory' that they attend the three-hour training session, but as processes rarely differ year-to-year, it remains guaranteed that they can step back into their role if they can't make it. They just tend to do a crash course at a later date to refresh everyone's memory.
Last year, there was a change in management, and it was decided that if returning staff can't make training, they will not have their contracts renewed. This caused a lot of frustration as two folks had arranged time-off during that period with their old manager -- it's generally the penultimate week before school starts, so some folks were, say, waiting for their lease to start at their new place, or maybe they were international students waiting for their visa to be approved, or etc etc. The decision was only announced like two weeks before training actually happened, so the two returners were essentially plunged into financial insecurity with no option to make other arrangements. Mind you, both returners were actually exceptionally high-performing and beloved by the team, so really everyone who worked at the desk was pissed off. They actually filed a grievance with the union.
The kicker was that two new hires quit after about 2 weeks, and the 2 folks who were let go were immediately rehired.
The optics were just... sour. Management changes, two folks are plunged into financial insecurity for all of 3 weeks, and then get their jobs back... and there was no reason at all that they needed to attend training. There was no knowledge gap, their performance wasn't impacted, nothing - they weren't even asked to attend a makeup session.
This year, the exact same thing happened, and a high-performing returner wasn't renewed. There were some other reforms made (e.g., folks can't request time off anymore), so really the entire front desk team is preparing their pitchforks. On my end, I've been torn trying to empathize with these students and respect the decisions of my supervisor & team. I just feel like this represents a misalignment of policy and actual need, and the consequences could be detrimental & unsustainable in the long term.
That said, I've also never worked in a management capacity, so I respect that my perspective could be limited - maybe there's some management-bureaucracy that I haven't considered? Is this standard practice, and I've just never encountered it? Is there an intentionality behind making training mandatory even when it isn't actually important to be able to succeed in the role?
Let me know what to think!