That matters when employees have contracts promising termination only with cause. But these employees are likely all at-will; they can be fired for having the wrong hair cut.
For anyone who says this isn't an unreasonable burden, what if you live in a different state? Or in a lower cost-of-living? Or have a home/family life built around a position working remotely that you have been functioning in perfectly fine for three, four, five plus years?
In Physical Security if your position requires body armor, the company is legally admitting it's a dangerous life-threatening position & denying a request for body armor is a legal attestation that the job should not be considered dangerous in the course of day to day work.
Much the same way, the company is now admitting that onsite work for the position is somehow more necessary then working remotely. Challenge these companies.
If this is just about unemployment benefits, sure: but you're eligible for unemployment benefits when you're RIF'd, too. You don't have to be constructively terminated to be eligible, just not fired for cause --- which is what termination in the ordinary course is.
That said, I think it does meaningfully impact the people that are getting terminated. I'm willing to think the company isn't trying to deny unemployment, but if it does have that implication, this is very wrong.
Every state but, for some reason, Montana.
Montana isn't especially pro-worker, either -- it's a staunchly conservative state -- it's just they didn't adopt many of the same statutes and wordings as the at-will states.