4 ms·

I'd say the logic is "We entered this agreement with the understanding that you would be in the office x% of the time. We would like you to return to the office

I'd say the logic is "We entered this agreement with the understanding that you would be in the office x% of the time. We would like you to return to the office at that original capacity. If you would not like to do so, we need to renegotiate our agreement." Not that I agree with any of this, nor am I sure that any of this is even written, but that's probably what it is. All of these gigs being at will employment certainly doesn't help the employee here.

rexreed 5y ago
"With the understanding that" is not a legal framework. Anything that's key to the understanding of a contract needs to be in a contract. Implicit "I always thought that" doesn't hold water. If I entered into an employee contract with the understanding that I would be given responsibility of a team or project, even though such an understanding was not in the contract, and then the management decides to take away that responsibility, can I say that they are in breach because it was "my understanding" that I would be given responsibility? It would be just as much of an "understanding" as saying that there was an implicit agreement about location of work when that's not in the contract either.
- jffry 5y ago
  Ah. "Employment Contracts" are not really a thing in most of the US, at least not like they are in Europe. Yes, employers will have you sign an official looking employment agreement, which basically serves as documentation that they're currently compensating you at X rate, and that you agree to be bound by specific employer rules (like employee handbooks / policies / etc). Those are not legally binding contracts. At-will workers can leave at any time and can be fired at any time for any reason or no reason, aside from for specific things protected by law (like organizing a union drive, or reporting sexual harassment)
  - rexreed 5y ago
    As non-legally binding contracts, can employers force employees to sign them? If they can, then would they have force of law? If not, then how can employers enforce non-competition, non-solicitation, non-disparagement, and non-disclosure clauses?
    - jffry 5y ago
      I believe the legal theory is that your employment and pay are compensation for agreeing to those terms, in terms of making it legally binding (offer, acceptance, and compensation) It's crummy and it's my opinion that non-competes should either be illegal everywhere or require employers to continue paying your salary during that period. But the laws as they stand broadly favor employers in this matter, and the reality of a large well-resourced corporation with a stable of lawyers makes it difficult for employees to fight even in situations where they are in the right.
ghaff 5y ago
Many/most contracts--to the degree they're even contracts in this case--embody common understandings. In the case of employment agreements, they usually assume that, absent agreements to the contrary, you're usually coming into some particular office 5 days per week, between the hours of whatever, unless you're traveling.
- rexreed 5y ago
  Sounds like the common understanding about location of work is about to change / already changed and is no longer a common understanding. The benefits of getting stuff in writing.

rexreed 5y ago

"With the understanding that" is not a legal framework. Anything that's key to the understanding of a contract needs to be in a contract. Implicit "I always thought that" doesn't hold water. If I entered into an employee contract with the understanding that I would be given responsibility of a team or project, even though such an understanding was not in the contract, and then the management decides to take away that responsibility, can I say that they are in breach because it was "my understanding" that I would be given responsibility? It would be just as much of an "understanding" as saying that there was an implicit agreement about location of work when that's not in the contract either.

jffry 5y ago
Ah. "Employment Contracts" are not really a thing in most of the US, at least not like they are in Europe. Yes, employers will have you sign an official looking employment agreement, which basically serves as documentation that they're currently compensating you at X rate, and that you agree to be bound by specific employer rules (like employee handbooks / policies / etc). Those are not legally binding contracts. At-will workers can leave at any time and can be fired at any time for any reason or no reason, aside from for specific things protected by law (like organizing a union drive, or reporting sexual harassment)
- rexreed 5y ago
  As non-legally binding contracts, can employers force employees to sign them? If they can, then would they have force of law? If not, then how can employers enforce non-competition, non-solicitation, non-disparagement, and non-disclosure clauses?
  - jffry 5y ago
    I believe the legal theory is that your employment and pay are compensation for agreeing to those terms, in terms of making it legally binding (offer, acceptance, and compensation) It's crummy and it's my opinion that non-competes should either be illegal everywhere or require employers to continue paying your salary during that period. But the laws as they stand broadly favor employers in this matter, and the reality of a large well-resourced corporation with a stable of lawyers makes it difficult for employees to fight even in situations where they are in the right.

ghaff 5y ago

Many/most contracts--to the degree they're even contracts in this case--embody common understandings. In the case of employment agreements, they usually assume that, absent agreements to the contrary, you're usually coming into some particular office 5 days per week, between the hours of whatever, unless you're traveling.

rexreed 5y ago
Sounds like the common understanding about location of work is about to change / already changed and is no longer a common understanding. The benefits of getting stuff in writing.