I'd consider it unjust if I was hired for a remote role and they changed that deal later.
Unjust might be society not offering a sufficient safety net to ride out income volatility.
Sure, and the contract should be terminated.
Within the context of this article, learning you may be funding sanctioned activities is a valid reason to revisit your business assumptions.
So in your view all contracts should be meaningless if one party doesn't want it anymore? Do we even need contracts then?
I find "it's just business" and "it's not personal" to be some of the most insulting and gaslighting phrases in the English language, by how they dehumanize the person at the receiving end of them.
People are affected by loss of income, and it is tragic. I don't think a buyer ceasing to buy from a seller is injustice, regardless if the relationship is employer/employee or customer/business.
It is society that should be providing the stability necessary for business to just be business. If a business makes a mistake, it is not unjust for the business to correct course which could involve changing its terms with its vendors (including employees).
In regards to when an employee or employer can terminate buying or selling labor, US law outside of Montana is “at-will”, meaning either party can stop buying or selling labor anytime they want, barring a contract that stipulates otherwise.
Saying "it's just business" is just a canned phrase for minimizing a general dismissive attitude toward the welfare of workers.
I don't think I am dismissive toward the welfare of workers. I strongly advocate for government helping workers by at least increasing/streamlining the process of receiving unemployment benefits and/or taxpayer funded efforts to re-train in the event of loss of income or even relocation assistance.