4 ms·

I'm a remote worker who would quit before returning to the office. But even so I can't interpret a requirement to be non-remote as "a hostile work environment",

I'm a remote worker who would quit before returning to the office. But even so I can't interpret a requirement to be non-remote as "a hostile work environment", "extraordinary", or "unreasonable". But yes, it does look more like a termination than a voluntary resignation.

Majromax 3y ago
> But even so I can't interpret a requirement to be non-remote as "a hostile work environment", "extraordinary", or "unreasonable". But yes, it does look more like a termination than a voluntary resignation. I think a unilateral change to the employment contract that substantially changes the character of the work (from fully remote to in-person) could fairly easily be described as 'unreasonable', just as if your employer decided to cut your salary in half. The fate of any potential case would probably come down to the reasonable expectations of the parties. If there was a common understanding that remote work was permanent, then a unilateral change would be unreasonable; if the remote work was time-limited, probationary, or a trial, then the change might be reasonable even if undesired.
- Aurornis 3y ago
  > I think a unilateral change to the employment contract These employees do not have employment contracts. It sounds nit-picky if you’re unfamiliar with the law, but it’s very important that companies avoid giving the suggestion that there is an “employment contract” Regardless, this is a company-wide policy change, not an action against an individual. Companies close offices, shutter departments, and pull out of regions while giving employees to the opportunity to relocate all the time. This is well-trodden territory and it’s not constructive dismissal against an individual.
adastra22 3y ago
The actual threashold is “a meaningful change in your work requirements” and there is, I believe, plenty of case law to establish that this includes a significant change to your worksite location. If you live 5 min from your office, maybe you can’t use this excuse. But if you are committing 45+ min each way, or have since moved out of state…
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  Yeah there is a lot of caselaw here. It will depend to some degree on the state, though. I'm guessing that AMZN also assumed that many would either move, or just eat the dismissal, and the cost of paying out those who fight it is still less than just giving unemployment to everyone. At least I hope they made those projections...
blitz16leb 3y ago
So to give some insight, I've been working as a virtual employee for 6 years. I've never been to an actual office location and don't live near one. Every offer/contact I've had has been for virtual location. In my employee portal it's always listed virtual as my location. With that said, we're now being forced to relocate to wherever our senior leadership (directors etc), people we've never met or spoken to, work out of. For example, if your leadership works out of Seattle, that's where you need to be. Only options are relocate or voluntarily resign. No severance. And it appears no unemployment options. I have no words to be honest and would genuinely appreciate advice.

Majromax 3y ago

> But even so I can't interpret a requirement to be non-remote as "a hostile work environment", "extraordinary", or "unreasonable". But yes, it does look more like a termination than a voluntary resignation. I think a unilateral change to the employment contract that substantially changes the character of the work (from fully remote to in-person) could fairly easily be described as 'unreasonable', just as if your employer decided to cut your salary in half. The fate of any potential case would probably come down to the reasonable expectations of the parties. If there was a common understanding that remote work was permanent, then a unilateral change would be unreasonable; if the remote work was time-limited, probationary, or a trial, then the change might be reasonable even if undesired.

Aurornis 3y ago
> I think a unilateral change to the employment contract These employees do not have employment contracts. It sounds nit-picky if you’re unfamiliar with the law, but it’s very important that companies avoid giving the suggestion that there is an “employment contract” Regardless, this is a company-wide policy change, not an action against an individual. Companies close offices, shutter departments, and pull out of regions while giving employees to the opportunity to relocate all the time. This is well-trodden territory and it’s not constructive dismissal against an individual.

adastra22 3y ago

The actual threashold is “a meaningful change in your work requirements” and there is, I believe, plenty of case law to establish that this includes a significant change to your worksite location. If you live 5 min from your office, maybe you can’t use this excuse. But if you are committing 45+ min each way, or have since moved out of state…

red-iron-pine 3y ago
Yeah there is a lot of caselaw here. It will depend to some degree on the state, though. I'm guessing that AMZN also assumed that many would either move, or just eat the dismissal, and the cost of paying out those who fight it is still less than just giving unemployment to everyone. At least I hope they made those projections...

blitz16leb 3y ago

So to give some insight, I've been working as a virtual employee for 6 years. I've never been to an actual office location and don't live near one. Every offer/contact I've had has been for virtual location. In my employee portal it's always listed virtual as my location. With that said, we're now being forced to relocate to wherever our senior leadership (directors etc), people we've never met or spoken to, work out of. For example, if your leadership works out of Seattle, that's where you need to be. Only options are relocate or voluntarily resign. No severance. And it appears no unemployment options. I have no words to be honest and would genuinely appreciate advice.