Comment by RollAHardSix | Hacker News Reader

Comment by RollAHardSix | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

No, I live in an at-will state, you can absolutely file for constructive dismissal. And SHOULD. If you can do your job remotely, have been doing your job remotely, and the company wants to end that? Then the company absolutely needs to be challenged and burdened with showing proof as to why returning to the office is necessary when it does create an unreasonable burden on the employee.

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.

Virtually everybody lives in an at-will state. The definition of an at-will state is one in which your employer doesn't need any reason to fire you. How does the constructive dismissal claim work? Is it your belief that they could fire you immediately if they wanted to, but have somehow, despite the huge legal department, blundered into the one way they can't fire you?

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.

My understanding is you can't get unemployment for quitting, though? Is that not accurate?

If the whole thing about constructive termination is that they're doing this "voluntary resignation" thing to avoid unemployment benefits, then this makes sense. I had the initial impression it was about avoiding having to relocate, but it looks like I misconstrued.

I have the impression a lot of folks just like yelling at companies. As such, I have no doubt your initial impression is a large part of the discourse.

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.

I agree with you. I, too, as too knee-jerk here. Thanks for spelling it out!

> Virtually everybody lives in an at-will state.

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.

Ya, I don’t see Amazon getting out of unemployment in this case. But they can fire at will employees, even if their unemployment premiums will go up as a result, they don’t have to worry about lawsuits otherwise. It still sucks for the employee being dismissed even if they qualify for unemployment.

If they won a case for constructive dismissal, what do you think they would win?

Unemployment benefits. Possibly a position retained remotely if it progresses to legal arbitration. But more importantly, precedent for other workers & the hit to unemployment insurance for the company. Obviously with Amazon's size its different but that unemployment insurance cost matters to most companies.

Why would there be legal arbitration? They already have the right to terminate you without cause. At best, wouldn't you be "winning" the recognition that they're simply RIF'ing you?

Thats a fair point if the employee thinks they will be using it.

their self respect?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com