4 ms·

How a forced "voluntary resignation" is different from a being fired? is it some corporate euphemism or is it a thing?

andsoitis 3y ago
> How a forced "voluntary resignation" is different from a being fired? is it some corporate euphemism or is it a thing? It is different in that you have a choice. You can either adapt to the new policy (work conditions change) or you can leave. Totally up to you.
- tedajax 3y ago
  Still a firing, false choice etc...
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    > Still a firing, false choice etc... Why do you view it as a false choice?
    - tedajax 3y ago
      Because saying "you can keep your job if you uproot your life" isn't a fair choice.
      - andsoitis 3y ago
        > Because saying "you can keep your job if you uproot your life" isn't a fair choice. Surely an employer and employee are free to choose the employment terms and when the terms are deemed unacceptable to either, they can part ways? If you're a top notch Amazon engineer, for example, and you don't want to uproot your life it would be fairly easy to find another job that is more suitable, don't you think? All employment relationships have tradeoffs.
        unpwn 3y ago
        Employment relationships and tradeoffs are negotiated at the time of hiring. Abruptly changing the terms in the middle with no re-negotiation is unfair. Sure, employees are free to leave and find another job, but with a layoff an employee has many benefits such as severance that are offered, where as in this case there are none. Instead of laying off people, should Amazon be able to just reduce their salary to 0, then say they're free to resign if they're not happy with it?
        andsoitis 3y ago
        > Employment relationships and tradeoffs are negotiated at the time of hiring. Abruptly changing the terms in the middle with no re-negotiation is unfair. Concur that the employer has to behave within the confines of the contract. If not, that's a contract violation and they should pay dearly. Is it the case that they are violating contractual terms? Or are they operating within the flexibility offered by the contract signed by both parties?
        unpwn 3y ago
        Whether they have violated the contract, like all of law is up to interpretation; Most likely, given Amazon's large team of lawyers, I'm sure they could get away with almost anything.
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  Seems more than a little debatable to me... could my employer require me to move to Alaska? if it's not in my employment contract, isn't it up to them to renegotiate or fire me?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- freedrock87 3y ago
  Its called constructive dismissal. Of course you have a choice to work from 10pm to 6am every day on a park bench but under US law the person is considered "fired" due significant changes in their work environment.
sottol 3y ago
Probably has something to do with mandated severance in some states if I had to guess. Otherwise they might have to show cause. But I'm completely out of my depth here
doublespanner 3y ago
I don't have access to this article, I would take it as changing conditions or duties to the least pleasant or practical that still fit within the terms of employment. For example required on premises work, assignment to undesirable projects, moving to a different office.
zer8k 3y ago
It's a way to avoid paying severance. Most companies do it but it's not talked about because it's highly illegal. Essentially, you can just assign someone menial tasks, refuse to promote them, etc until they leave. There's nothing illegal about doing that (if it occurs "naturally"). It's called constructive dismissal. The burden of proof is on the employee and it's a very high bar. If the employer has any excuse it won't work. "We didn't have enough work for them", or "there was no budget for promotion" would be sufficient to squash the case.
- coredog64 3y ago
  This seems more cut-and-dried. Many of these employees were hired with their official location as “virtual”, so there’s proof of a change by the company. The other thing that is happening concurrently at Amazon is Return To Team (RTT). Let’s say that you didn’t get hired with “virtual” as your location, but Seattle. Your leadership has decided that the center of mass for your team is Austin (or Tempe, or Arlington). Not only do you have to RTO, you have to return to that office.
tiltowait 3y ago
"You must do X to keep your job," where X in this case is something onerous but still doable for most (like moving to a different city so you can work in-office). If you refuse to do the onerous thing, then you're voluntarily refusing to do that which keeps your job. Therefore, it's a voluntary resignation.

> How a forced "voluntary resignation" is different from a being fired? is it some corporate euphemism or is it a thing? It is different in that you have a choice. You can either adapt to the new policy (work conditions change) or you can leave. Totally up to you.

tedajax 3y ago
Still a firing, false choice etc...
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > Still a firing, false choice etc... Why do you view it as a false choice?
  - tedajax 3y ago
    Because saying "you can keep your job if you uproot your life" isn't a fair choice.
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      > Because saying "you can keep your job if you uproot your life" isn't a fair choice. Surely an employer and employee are free to choose the employment terms and when the terms are deemed unacceptable to either, they can part ways? If you're a top notch Amazon engineer, for example, and you don't want to uproot your life it would be fairly easy to find another job that is more suitable, don't you think? All employment relationships have tradeoffs.
      - unpwn 3y ago
        Employment relationships and tradeoffs are negotiated at the time of hiring. Abruptly changing the terms in the middle with no re-negotiation is unfair. Sure, employees are free to leave and find another job, but with a layoff an employee has many benefits such as severance that are offered, where as in this case there are none. Instead of laying off people, should Amazon be able to just reduce their salary to 0, then say they're free to resign if they're not happy with it?
        andsoitis 3y ago
        > Employment relationships and tradeoffs are negotiated at the time of hiring. Abruptly changing the terms in the middle with no re-negotiation is unfair. Concur that the employer has to behave within the confines of the contract. If not, that's a contract violation and they should pay dearly. Is it the case that they are violating contractual terms? Or are they operating within the flexibility offered by the contract signed by both parties?
        unpwn 3y ago
        Whether they have violated the contract, like all of law is up to interpretation; Most likely, given Amazon's large team of lawyers, I'm sure they could get away with almost anything.
micromacrofoot 3y ago
Seems more than a little debatable to me... could my employer require me to move to Alaska? if it's not in my employment contract, isn't it up to them to renegotiate or fire me?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
freedrock87 3y ago
Its called constructive dismissal. Of course you have a choice to work from 10pm to 6am every day on a park bench but under US law the person is considered "fired" due significant changes in their work environment.

sottol 3y ago

Probably has something to do with mandated severance in some states if I had to guess. Otherwise they might have to show cause. But I'm completely out of my depth here

doublespanner 3y ago

I don't have access to this article, I would take it as changing conditions or duties to the least pleasant or practical that still fit within the terms of employment. For example required on premises work, assignment to undesirable projects, moving to a different office.

zer8k 3y ago

It's a way to avoid paying severance. Most companies do it but it's not talked about because it's highly illegal. Essentially, you can just assign someone menial tasks, refuse to promote them, etc until they leave. There's nothing illegal about doing that (if it occurs "naturally"). It's called constructive dismissal. The burden of proof is on the employee and it's a very high bar. If the employer has any excuse it won't work. "We didn't have enough work for them", or "there was no budget for promotion" would be sufficient to squash the case.

coredog64 3y ago
This seems more cut-and-dried. Many of these employees were hired with their official location as “virtual”, so there’s proof of a change by the company. The other thing that is happening concurrently at Amazon is Return To Team (RTT). Let’s say that you didn’t get hired with “virtual” as your location, but Seattle. Your leadership has decided that the center of mass for your team is Austin (or Tempe, or Arlington). Not only do you have to RTO, you have to return to that office.

tiltowait 3y ago

"You must do X to keep your job," where X in this case is something onerous but still doable for most (like moving to a different city so you can work in-office). If you refuse to do the onerous thing, then you're voluntarily refusing to do that which keeps your job. Therefore, it's a voluntary resignation.