It's more insidious than that.
Being forced to RTO across the country, then immediately laid off after I uprooted my life to do so, all while knowing the layoffs were planned while they were telling me to move across the country, is fucked.
Being forced to RTO across the country, then immediately laid off after I uprooted my life to do so, all while knowing the layoffs were planned while they were telling me to move across the country, is fucked.
(also why employers are trying to staff up offices offshore in LATAM and India)
Edit: @tbrownaw all of the responses to your inquiry are accurate.
What does this mean in concrete terms? What useful power do they gain based on physical presence, and what rights are currently absent but coming (back?) soon?
If remote labor is the norm, then every tech company has to compete with every other, across all geographies. If local labor is required, the employers can manage or restrict their competitive environment. There are fewer options for the employee.
The bulk layoffs of the past couple of years have a similar effect - gaining power. It makes every employee a little more conscious that their employment is provisional and conditional.
But I think RTO goes beyond just market power gains. There are many workers who are conscientious, attentive, and dedicated. For each one of those there are plenty who are just punching their time card. I’m no expert but it seems to me that RTO gives the employer and mid-level managers better visibility into all of that dynamic.
But RTO fights against the reality that employers have constructed distributed teams, with people working from all over the globe on the same project. If that’s the case, what is the difference whether I work from my home office, or a hotel desk space in a big building alongside people I don’t know.?
Doesn’t that seem backwards? A company that supports remote work has a worldwide talent pool.l, including lower cost geographies. A company that insists on RTO can only hire locally, so has less talent available and can’t arbitrage labor costs.
I think RTO makes no sense, but I don’t see how it gives employers more power.
* Remote workers aren't actually a worldwide labor force because of time zones, so the competition on the labor side is less than in theory.
* Remote work diminished the difference in liquidity between labor and capital markets. Capital is by nature more liquid than labor, and being more liquid gives you an advantage. As you say, the competitive pressures exist in both markets, and maybe this is a wash in terms of power.
* Remote workers can pay off mortgages faster, leading to more early retirements.
I still think the primary reason is a desire to manage according to the old style, which is a different argument than the GP.
Humans are not just replaceable cogs. When you hire someone, there are several things built into the assumption of that work that we take for granted. For example, federal holidays or work culture. The US is notorious for accepting overwork as the norm (people even brag about working 60-hour weeks) where that's just not acceptable in other parts of the world. That's obviously not true everywhere (e.g. 9-9-6 in China), but is true in enough places that it's not trivial to just swap in person A from country X with person B in country Y. That's not even touching on labor laws, language barriers (e.g. understanding office lingo like "circle back"), or value structure. The latter is huge where Americans care a lot about their jobs and careers and most parts of the world don't have the concept of a career.
Of course. And the workers want more money.
It's how markets work.
As for workers having fewer protections rn, gestures in the general direction of DC.
This doesn't make any sense. Remote jobs are... remote. Moving to mountain view or whatever doesn't make you "limited to other companies in their metro". You can still find remote jobs, but now you have the additional option of in-person jobs in the bay area.
If you live in Omaha and work remotely, far more remote jobs are available.
Remote jobs on average pay less because you are competing with people who live in the MiddleOfNowhere Nebraska.
Even formerly “field by design” roles that were permanently remote at AWS (where I use to work) paid less than in office jobs. Now those jobs are also in office jobs at both Amazon and Google (GCP).
Since that’s always an option.. yeah clearly keeping talent in high col places is a part of the cudgel that employers want to use against employees. It’s similar to healthcare being connected to employment really. If the labor market was actually free from ultimately coercive tactics like this then the world would look very different.
My prediction is that as soon as interest rates fall, employers will be reintroducing “flexibility” to lure workers and attract talent. And at that point it might become more established.
Definitely power there if you know your staff have just uprooted their lives and now depend on you for their immediate term existence…
Do this, or else.
Fortunately I didn't have to uproot my life or move cities, but it was a wakeup call as to the true nature of at will employment. You can't take anything for granted.
A plan B is always a good thing to have. I knew a middle class engineer a few years ago who spent every dime of his salary on installment payments for this and that. The company then had to cut back, and he went into a furious panic. It was a trap he set for himself, although he blamed the company.
Even if the government guarantees you lifetime employment, it isn't a guarantee.
Some states even have laws that employers don't have to pay accrued vacation time. For example Nevada says employers with under 50 employees don't have to pay accrued vacation.
However, there are exceptions. In particular if the company is small enough, or the layoff is below a certain percentage of employees, it doesn't take effect.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retrai...