4 ms·

They did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23155647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23155647 > you are in a remote role, and are now reneging It's co

They did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23155647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23155647 > you are in a remote role, and are now reneging It's completely unreasonable for a company to force you to move, if a company asks that of you start looking for a new job immediately. There are companies out there that respect your personal life and don't want to consume it.

dcow 3y ago
Twitter reneged? We’re talking about Google here.
- bluefishinit 3y ago
  The post we're replying to said: > Because during COVID a lot of companies started saying that's their new philosophy and are reneging on it now that they feel they can, and a lot of us shuffled around during that time. People hired onto remote teams and are getting rug pulled now. Twitter is one of those companies. Any company that didn't say "you can work remote temporarily", but now wants to force RTO is also going back on their social (and potentially legal) contract with their employees.
  - dcow 3y ago
    I'm trying to clarify my understanding. Is it the case that Twitter has reneged on telling employees they can work fully remote? I have no disagreement with you that there are social and potentially legal problems with companies that have said that. I am just trying to understand if Twitter and more relevantly Google have done that.
    - bluefishinit 3y ago
      Yes, Twitter promised "work from home forever" and Musk unceremoniously reversed that. Same with Slack: https://mashable.com/article/slack-remote-work-permanent-coronavirus https://mashable.com/article/slack-remote-work-permanent-cor... I'm sure there are other but those are the two I know off the top of my head that promised work from home "forever" then went back on their word.
      - dcow 3y ago
        Then if I were a Twitter employee I'd be pretty upset. In terms of Google and Amazon and Apple telling people to come back to the office, though, not sure there's the same grounds for outrage.
      - PraetorianGourd 3y ago
        They should have never used “permanent” or “forever”. New leaders come in, old leaders go out. Realities change. Should every subsequent CEO be bound by some promise of a prior CEO? Seems unsustainable.

dcow 3y ago

Twitter reneged? We’re talking about Google here.

bluefishinit 3y ago
The post we're replying to said: > Because during COVID a lot of companies started saying that's their new philosophy and are reneging on it now that they feel they can, and a lot of us shuffled around during that time. People hired onto remote teams and are getting rug pulled now. Twitter is one of those companies. Any company that didn't say "you can work remote temporarily", but now wants to force RTO is also going back on their social (and potentially legal) contract with their employees.
- dcow 3y ago
  I'm trying to clarify my understanding. Is it the case that Twitter has reneged on telling employees they can work fully remote? I have no disagreement with you that there are social and potentially legal problems with companies that have said that. I am just trying to understand if Twitter and more relevantly Google have done that.
  - bluefishinit 3y ago
    Yes, Twitter promised "work from home forever" and Musk unceremoniously reversed that. Same with Slack: https://mashable.com/article/slack-remote-work-permanent-coronavirus https://mashable.com/article/slack-remote-work-permanent-cor... I'm sure there are other but those are the two I know off the top of my head that promised work from home "forever" then went back on their word.
    - dcow 3y ago
      Then if I were a Twitter employee I'd be pretty upset. In terms of Google and Amazon and Apple telling people to come back to the office, though, not sure there's the same grounds for outrage.
    - PraetorianGourd 3y ago
      They should have never used “permanent” or “forever”. New leaders come in, old leaders go out. Realities change. Should every subsequent CEO be bound by some promise of a prior CEO? Seems unsustainable.