4 ms·

The version of "ask" in that sentence actually means "tell". Not setting clear boundaries about what you expect from employees is unfair, have some kind of agr

The version of "ask" in that sentence actually means "tell". Not setting clear boundaries about what you expect from employees is unfair, have some kind of agreement on number of days in the office, SLA for how long in advance a meeting needs to be booked for you to make it in office or whatever suits the companies needs. Failing to make a clear decision on this is unfairly punitive for people expecting to live their life in a way which they chose. Those people who are brave enough can interpret it as it's fine to buy a house far from the office. More conservative people will have to stay within the commuter belt. At least in the UK/Europe I imagine that it's not going to be long before someone ends up in court claiming constructive dismissal because an employer suddenly decided they had to work in a particular office.

Closi 4y ago
Their position is pretty clear - we expect to be able to tell you to return to the office at some point in the future if we want you to work from the office. IMO it's not really unfair or ambiguous - if you want to guarantee you can always do your job remotely then don't take the job.
- VBprogrammer 4y ago
  I disagree. Permanently reserving the right to significantly and materially change your working conditions isn't clear or fair. Perhaps for people who are still young, free and single it makes little difference but for people like me it changes everything from where we could buy a house, where our children will can go to pre-school / school and what our childcare arrangements with the grandparents look like. It's not something we can change just because some exec misses being able to rule over thier kingdom in person.
  - Closi 4y ago
    IMO it is clear (i.e. you understand what it means), but it wouldn't fit you personally because of all your other commitments and life position, and everything you listed. Which is totally fine, and means this working arrangement isn't for you, but it doesn't mean it is fundamentally unfair or that it wouldn't work for someone else (like you say - it could suit someone who isn't you). To me though, you seem to say "this is unfair because it wouldn't work for me".
    - VBprogrammer 4y ago
      There is probably no point in arguing this further, though I appreciate your input and the manor in which you have given it. The thing for me is no one benefits from the lack of commitment to some way of working (and I mean a company commitment to something isn't a cast iron guarantee either). It's not like saying we're an in office company we expect you here 5 days a week; for me that would be a massive disadvantage. However, I can see that for other people that would suit them perfectly and might well have lots of advantages in terms of social life and opportunity to learn from those you work with. If a companies stance was that we are working from the office but reserve the right to work fully remote at some unidentifiable point in the future that would similarly disadvantage those people who seek out in office jobs.
      - Closi 4y ago
        I think it's just an example of "different strokes for different folks". > The thing for me is no one benefits from the lack of commitment to some way of working Amazon would be the one benefiting, because it means they can bring in office working in the future without contractual changes.

Closi 4y ago

Their position is pretty clear - we expect to be able to tell you to return to the office at some point in the future if we want you to work from the office. IMO it's not really unfair or ambiguous - if you want to guarantee you can always do your job remotely then don't take the job.

VBprogrammer 4y ago
I disagree. Permanently reserving the right to significantly and materially change your working conditions isn't clear or fair. Perhaps for people who are still young, free and single it makes little difference but for people like me it changes everything from where we could buy a house, where our children will can go to pre-school / school and what our childcare arrangements with the grandparents look like. It's not something we can change just because some exec misses being able to rule over thier kingdom in person.
- Closi 4y ago
  IMO it is clear (i.e. you understand what it means), but it wouldn't fit you personally because of all your other commitments and life position, and everything you listed. Which is totally fine, and means this working arrangement isn't for you, but it doesn't mean it is fundamentally unfair or that it wouldn't work for someone else (like you say - it could suit someone who isn't you). To me though, you seem to say "this is unfair because it wouldn't work for me".
  - VBprogrammer 4y ago
    There is probably no point in arguing this further, though I appreciate your input and the manor in which you have given it. The thing for me is no one benefits from the lack of commitment to some way of working (and I mean a company commitment to something isn't a cast iron guarantee either). It's not like saying we're an in office company we expect you here 5 days a week; for me that would be a massive disadvantage. However, I can see that for other people that would suit them perfectly and might well have lots of advantages in terms of social life and opportunity to learn from those you work with. If a companies stance was that we are working from the office but reserve the right to work fully remote at some unidentifiable point in the future that would similarly disadvantage those people who seek out in office jobs.
    - Closi 4y ago
      I think it's just an example of "different strokes for different folks". > The thing for me is no one benefits from the lack of commitment to some way of working Amazon would be the one benefiting, because it means they can bring in office working in the future without contractual changes.