3 ms·

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.