Meta faces ‘morale crisis’ as top execs work from other countries during layoffs
nypost.com
nypost.com
Everyone else uses the already established defacto standard library from $language.
News medias talk about companies that hire 100 000s people, across 10s of countries, cultures, etc, etc and then write their stories basing on opinion of 4 random employees
"Oh but if we are many to complain thigs may change".
Well except that you can also be mass fired, especially in tech where the consensus is that most FAANG are way overstaffed with bullshit jobs
I'll try to look up the link later, but I'd swear that one of them goes something like this, and some of you guys probably know what I'm talking about: Lady shows up with her dog. Grabs a bunch of free snacks. Grabs a free smoothie. Hits the "funfetti room" with her laptop for a zoom meeting. Grabs an enormous seafood lunch at the (free) company canteen. Goes for a walk with her dog. Grabs another free snack and/or a smoothie. Goes home.
Just another generic "day in the life."
I (and many other engineers I work with) often get so engrossed with work I forget lunch. Who are these people stuffing their faces all day?
It created this really toxic dynamic of managers lording over the staff remotely from their homes, while making overt claims on "oh its so important for everyone else to really pull together and come into the office" and how "difficult it was for them to be out of the office", many many people left including myself when we found remote work elsewhere.
Shows how out of touch these people are.
The traditional class divisions were mostly hidden: Companies strongly try to hide salaries. Chauffeurs and company limos for the execs operate from private back doors reserved for the execs. Lavish outings are usually kept secret. Huge perks like company-provided vacation houses and yachts are kept way on the down low.
WFH is harder to hide. When only the exec class gets to do it, and all the cogs need to be crammed into the office, this is overt and gets noticed. When your WFH office is bigger than most people’s apartments, it gets noticed (the execs in my company have caught on to this one and now all blur/tone-down their videoconf backgrounds). In retail, when management makes all the worker bees wear masks yet exempts themselves, it’s noticed.
The argument is essentially everything would be better even if everything is exactly the same (same number of layoffs, etc) except the work location. It doesn't hold.
Of course, if a company’s execs control the company (have majority shares) then they can do whatever the hell they want - including firing everybody and running the company into the ground if they feel like it.
I think the sentiment suggests that lots here have been scared to buy Meta stock when it crashed to $88. It's very important to disregard the news or predictions of immediate implosions of companies, or headlines of high sensationalism due to over-emotional events like layoffs and euphoric hype that manipulate human psychology.
We'll see how Meta does, but declaring it 'dead' or even 'dying' is nothing more than a great exaggeration.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/12/technology/meta-layoffs-e...
Tax laws are ridiculous everywhere, but one thing is for sure, they want that income tax if they can get it. Especially because in EU countries (for most tech worker US salaries), a large portion would be taxed at >40%.
Even if you do get tax residency in a new country, there are many cases where that wouldn’t entitle them to tax a remote worker’s income anyway. For instance if you had tax residency in a new country, and tax residency at home at the same time, and there was a double taxation between the two countries, your home country would likely retain the exclusively right to tax you for all or most of that income.
Obviously, being a contractor for a foreign company doesn’t excuse you from paying taxes. The same applies if you are employed except now you are employed illegally by a foreign company. The employee isn’t the only one who gets in trouble, fwiw. I worked for a 100% remote company and there were legal guides for being a nomad. If you didn’t follow the advice, it was grounds for immediate firing.
Some countries don’t care, some, like Italy, will arrest you in a heartbeat. And some, will just fine you for every day you “worked” (the US).
For the US, tax residency for the entire year is 33 days. If you are an expat, this is something you are acutely aware of, because you can lose your foreign income exclusion for 5 years if you go back for too long. For most other countries, it’s ~180 days to become a tax resident, but that usually only applies in certain situations (like in Europe, if you are a tax resident of another EU country) otherwise it is 0 days.
No, I’m saying (and I’ll just copy paste it):
> If an employee simply picks up and starts doing their job from another country, they will almost certainly be still paying all the same taxes they usually pay in the country where their job is located.
There is no country in the world that claims to have tax residency over visitors on their 0th day after arrival. Working during a business trip, or while on vacation doesn’t create a tax liability in the country you’re visiting. Otherwise people would be routinely filing tax returns with foreign governments after business trips or vacations, which everybody reading this comment knows you don’t have to do.
Even then you’re confusing tax residency with tax liability. You can arrive in a country, and immediately create tax liability for yourself (by getting locally sourced income for example). But you’re not going to get tax residency until you’ve spent some minimum period there (usually ~6 months), even if that residency is back dated to the day your first arrived.
”[…] any noncitizen who earns an income in the US must have proper work authorization from the United States government. Working while physically present in the US, even for a foreign employer and even if any earnings are paid into a foreign bank account, will still be classed as work.“
https://www.nnuimmigration.com/can-you-work-remotely-from-us...
> What is the difference between permissible ESTA business activities and employment?
> The key points of differentiation are that VWP activity should not deprive a US resident worker of employment opportunity, and that the traveller will not be remunerated from a US-based source.
https://www.nnuimmigration.com/esta-business/
Your interpretation of the law here is highly novel. People have been legally doing remote work on temporary entry visas for decades. If this was in fact illegal, it wouldn’t be difficult for you to find some case law that supports your interpretation.
I was employed in the US on an L-1 visa, and my wife had an L-2 which allowed her to apply for an SSN and work authorization. The advice given by Deloitte was that she should put her existing remote foreign job on hold while waiting to receive the SSN.
When I later switched to an O-1, her work authorization ended (for some reason, O-3 spouses don’t get to work like L-2 spouses do). Another immigration specialist advised us that she should not get paid abroad while on the O-3.
The restrictions on work for temporary entrants are to protect job opportunities available to legal residents. Doing remote work for you job back home doesn’t threaten that. There are 10s of millions of people who enter the US on B category visas every year. If any of this was illegal there would be no shortage of case law to support this interpretation.
Sure. But if that’s all you’re doing, then you don’t have a reason to be in the country. Entry is granted for a purpose, not as a default right (even under visa waiver programs).
That’s why you want to tell immigration officers about the meetings you’re going to have and events you’re going to attend — things that require your physical presence.
This applies to other countries too, not just the USA. I know Thailand has become more active in refusing entry to Europeans doing remote work for 3-month periods one after another, with no business contacts in the country.
Over the past three years many countries have introduced a so-called digital nomad visa for remote workers. Why would they need a new category if this were already allowed under existing tourist and business visa rules?
Tourism is a permissible purpose, and it is legitimately the purpose of entry for “digital nomads”.
> I know Thailand has become more active in refusing entry to Europeans doing remote work for 3-month periods one after another
Many countries, and Thailand quite infamously, have always had strict approaches to the tourist “visa runs”, because it has always been associated with visa and tax fraud, in the form of people working under the table jobs in the country (very frequently as English teachers). This isn’t new.
> Over the past three years many countries have introduced a so-called digital nomad visa for remote workers. Why would they need a new category if this were already allowed under existing tourist and business visa rules?
It depends on the specifics of the visa. But the most basic form of digital nomad visa is simply a longer duration multiple entry tourist visa. These are created to encourage digital nomads to stay longer than they could on a normal tourist visa, and they are created to capitalise on what the newly emerging digital nomad segment is. Which is simply a highly valuable group of tourists who bring lots of money into the economy without consuming any public services.
Other types of digital nomad visa are created to encourage people to shift their tax residence, and sometimes include tax incentives. These visas are created to capture free tax revenue that they would otherwise have no access to, and usually also don’t include any entitlements to public services.
They’re not created to allow something that was previously prohibited. They’re created to maximise the benefit that this segment of tourists can provide.
The dictionary definition of tourism is travel for pleasure. Full-time employment paid in another country is not that.
But of course online remote work is so new that legislation written decades ago doesn’t explicitly cover this. Maybe you’re right and the many immigration professionals I’ve talked to are just being overly cautious. I still wouldn’t recommend anyone try entering the United States on a tourist visa and telling the immigration officer that they’re going to be working remotely.
A digital nomad enters a country exclusively to pursue the pleasure of tourism. The entire point of digital nomadism is that those people have realised they can engage in tourism year-round.
This is where people seem to get confused. A tourist visa might get you in the country, but there are plenty of other (tax) laws you have to abide by. For example, if you move to an EU country and work remotely for a US country that doesn’t have an EU presence, and get caught. It’s extremely likely the country could claim you are hired illegally in their country and force the company to retroactively hire you, pay employment tax, and be on the hook for VAT as well. Meanwhile, you sit in jail until they figure all that out (probably without bail since you could easily leave the country).
I remember reading an article about this not too long ago, I’ll see if I can find it. But regardless, if you want to be a nomad, being familiar with local tax laws and tax-residency laws is a must-do.