Why? Why would this supercede fiduciary duty? Maybe this is a real ask for managers which isn’t considered anymore after a certain point. Why is every rule expected to apply equally across every level of the company?
Why am I required to return to office but everyone in my management chain gets to work remote? Are the benefits of in-person collaboration not relevant to them too?
If a policy requires carve outs and exemptions, those should be documented ahead of time with the rational explanation.
Edit: note my example about remote work was totally hypothetical; I don't work at Amazon.
The idea that businesses exist for shareholders and then only incidentally exist for the benefit of their employees or their customers is not handed to us on stone tablets from God. This principle is no more valid than a principle which insists that an employer must act in the pursuit of the interests of its employees.
0. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
1. http://in-houseblog.practicallaw.com/fallacy-of-the-duty-to-...
Throughout the company, data was used to make decisions. Without data, documents would be rejected and projects put on hold. So why is this mandate lacking data? It managed to ruin a lot of trust that employees had placed on leadership.
Easy: it's a decision made by the S team who can get away with not justifying themselves to ICs. They usually would show their working even though they don't have to, but in this case that would reveal their true reasoning (stealth layoffs, pressure from local governments who gave tax incentives to build now empty offices). So, they make up some stuff about RTO increasing innovation.
Ding ding ding. You got it in one!
Can't tell you how often hiring issues/complete fuckery arises from municipalities slapping golden handcuffs on companies.