Hacker News Reader

Comment by cle | Hacker News Reader

It would be interesting to count people who were likely forced out due to return-to-office mandates.

I think that would be an interesting number to know. I get occasional pings for remote contract options, the rates have dropped quite a bit from personal observation.

I’ve been lucky to be fully remote for over a decade. I avoided talking beyond a couple screens with Amazon during Covid because the hiring managers were wishy washy about if “hired remote” meant that would be a permanent thing. Despite the hullabaloo I think most Amazon management knew fully remote had an end date.

may i ask where you source these contracts?

Alternately, those that chose to not keep their job because they did not return.

I note your passive voice in this "construct" for this fantasy

I also note the presumptive statement of the comment I replied to. Not everyone agrees that remote work is still a good idea in all situations.

It's only a presumptive statement (in this sense) if one assumes there wasn't a single employee forced out due to RTO mandates.

I'm not trying to make any sort of statement about RTO in general. I'm sure there are at least some companies who are using RTO mandates as a "constructive dismissal" tactic, I'm curious how widespread that is. If it's widespread, then it's important to track when looking at layoff data.

I’m a huge proponent of RTO, but that’s a personal decision not a layoff.

its not a decision when it is forced...

The employee chose not to return to the office though.

Hard to argue with that logic.

There's definitely still a discussion around the concept of constructive dismissal that could be had. Although a lot of that has to do with the exact parameters of the RTO, so it would be company to company.

I have provided guidance to several folks over the last few years with regards to taking a remote role. I have told all of them to require in their offer letter that the role be defined as remote without an in office component (it helps if you don't take a role at an org that has an office within 50 miles of your home address). I have also provided them with contact information for an employment attorney who will provide a letter to their employer with regards to their employment arrangement being remote if the employer attempts to unilaterally change the working arrangement. In no cases has the employer successfully required the employee return to office, and only once was the attorney necessary to push the issue.

n=1. If you're taking a remote role, have it codified in your offer letter. Retain that as an artifact in the event you need to engage legally. Always be prepared for your job to end at any time due to the state of US employment, but also set yourself up for success whenever possible. The party with the best position of power and the least to lose typically is the one who wins. Always be preparing a paper trail if you feel like the actions your employer is taking might infringe on your labor rights. You've then done all the hard work to then hand it over to an attorney and/or government regulator for actioning.

And if you're not organizing and unionizing to secure remote work as a right at your org, you should consider it. Very favorable environment at the moment to do so.

(not an attorney, not your attorney)

> Very favorable environment at the moment to do so.

Is it? I would think that during hiring booms would be a far more favorable environment for workers to drive demands.

NLRB is more aggressive than historically with adults in charge at the executive branch.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37421903

Also, structural labor shortages for the next decade.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37524951

NLRB just helps you vote to put a union in place. So, now you can pay a union your dues, but if the union doesn't have actual structural leverage over the employer, you're likely going to pay 1% of your salary for roughly the same deal you have now.

1% of my salary at improved odds of having more power in a work arrangement with an employer sounds like a steal, vs 0% and having no chance. Nothing is assured as always.

I spend more than that on annual auto insurance, for comparison, and the odds are much higher I need protection from an employer vs another driver. We may have different opinions on value, and that’s okay.

ACT 1

"We're hiring remote, being in NYC or London or Peru is totally fine, geographic diversity of talent is a strength! Own your schedule!"

ACT 2

"Sorry folks, we just had a downround, can't control the market.

BTW in totally unrelated news, RTO next week. Folks in NYC & London & Peru, you can keep your job, just move to SF HQ. We will not pay for movers, higher SF compensation, etc. Also, it's starting on Monday, no excuses: We can't wait for your kids to finish the school year, your wife to get a new medical specialist, nor help you find a preschool for your youngest. I know it's annoying, it took me a year to get through a waitlist for ours, haha SF. Totally not a layoff... though HR does tell us to expect 10-20% attrition..."

Is this legal?

IANAL and don't know for sure whether or not there are any criminal statutes that would prevent it... but in general, employment is all about what is in your contract with your employer.

If you have a contract saying they'll never move your job to a new city, you can take a civil action against them to enforce that. But I've never seen such things in my employment history.

Companies have been doing this forever. As I child, IBM almost relocated our family multiple times. They were doing huge reorgs in the 90s

This is almost certainly down to contract law, but IANAL too

not a lawyer but sounds like a constructive dismissal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal

Like in "office space".

The office had burned down.

Everyone failed to go to work.

Would you be putting it on the employees if instead of laying off people, companies dropped their salary to minimum wage?

It's not a personal decision when the job was advertised as fully remote, you were hired in city A with the expectation that you would continue to live there, and then a few months later the company said "move your family 2000 miles to city B or resign".

If the company changes the terms of employment and you don't accept the new terms, that's not on you. The company is the one deciding to fire you, plain and simple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com