4 ms·

Let’s play another round of “was it a shadow layoff or just routine incompetence?”

bo0tzz 3y ago
It was an union-busting move https://www.advocate.com/business/grindr-union-busting-accusations https://www.advocate.com/business/grindr-union-busting-accus...
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  I'm sure they will testify in court that the decision was completely coincidental.
  - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
    Doesn't matter what they testify, the burden of proof is on them at this point to prove they would have done this anyway, independent of the unionization effort. Which, given that it was suggested to them by the union-busters they hired, is going to be difficult. The test for such a burden shift is 1) effected employees took a protected action 2) the company knew about it 3) the employer didn't approve of the protected activity. 1 and 2 are trivially proven, 3 is proven by the company hiring union busters.
- susanasj 3y ago
  it is 100% a union busting move. RTO was announced almost immediately after announcement of the union drive
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  What’s funny is that the calculus is still the same: your best people are going to leave and your worst are going to stay. Breathtakingly poor foresight.
ren_engineer 3y ago
this, seems like an easy way to reduce headcount without having to pay severance benefits
- mannykannot 3y ago
  The options are either return to the office or leave with severance benefits. The company probably wants to limit the grounds on which the National Labor Relations Board might get involved - especially if, as is widely suspected, this is covertly a union-busting move.
  - supertimor 3y ago
    Not very covert really. A week after workers announced they were unionizing, Grindr hired lawyers who specialize in employer labor relations and what they’re calling “union avoidance” (aka union busting). And then two weeks later Grindr announces their relocation/RTO mandate. From Littler Mendelson’s website (Grindr’s lawyers): “We guide companies in developing and initiating strategies that lawfully avoid unions” But yeah, I agree severance is probably their strategy to limit any pushback the NLRB might have on this, but just not sure how strong of a case Grindr can make. Especially after the recent rulings from the NLRB that gives more protections to workers trying to unionize.
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  Doesn’t really work like that. An employee can’t be forced to move for work, so at some point the company will have to fire them. That said, companies are _never_ under any obligation to pay severance, just unemployment insurance.
  - euniceee3 3y ago
    In the US they are federally required to provide severance if it meets certain conditions. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/Layoff/pdfs/WorkerWARN2003.pdf https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/Layoff/pdfs/Worke...
xkcd-sucks 3y ago
It is a little surprising that in-office mandates aren't considered constructive dismissal

It was an union-busting move https://www.advocate.com/business/grindr-union-busting-accusations https://www.advocate.com/business/grindr-union-busting-accus...

sidewndr46 3y ago
I'm sure they will testify in court that the decision was completely coincidental.
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  Doesn't matter what they testify, the burden of proof is on them at this point to prove they would have done this anyway, independent of the unionization effort. Which, given that it was suggested to them by the union-busters they hired, is going to be difficult. The test for such a burden shift is 1) effected employees took a protected action 2) the company knew about it 3) the employer didn't approve of the protected activity. 1 and 2 are trivially proven, 3 is proven by the company hiring union busters.
susanasj 3y ago
it is 100% a union busting move. RTO was announced almost immediately after announcement of the union drive
dclowd9901 3y ago
What’s funny is that the calculus is still the same: your best people are going to leave and your worst are going to stay. Breathtakingly poor foresight.

ren_engineer 3y ago

this, seems like an easy way to reduce headcount without having to pay severance benefits

mannykannot 3y ago
The options are either return to the office or leave with severance benefits. The company probably wants to limit the grounds on which the National Labor Relations Board might get involved - especially if, as is widely suspected, this is covertly a union-busting move.
- supertimor 3y ago
  Not very covert really. A week after workers announced they were unionizing, Grindr hired lawyers who specialize in employer labor relations and what they’re calling “union avoidance” (aka union busting). And then two weeks later Grindr announces their relocation/RTO mandate. From Littler Mendelson’s website (Grindr’s lawyers): “We guide companies in developing and initiating strategies that lawfully avoid unions” But yeah, I agree severance is probably their strategy to limit any pushback the NLRB might have on this, but just not sure how strong of a case Grindr can make. Especially after the recent rulings from the NLRB that gives more protections to workers trying to unionize.
dclowd9901 3y ago
Doesn’t really work like that. An employee can’t be forced to move for work, so at some point the company will have to fire them. That said, companies are _never_ under any obligation to pay severance, just unemployment insurance.
- euniceee3 3y ago
  In the US they are federally required to provide severance if it meets certain conditions. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/Layoff/pdfs/WorkerWARN2003.pdf https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/Layoff/pdfs/Worke...

xkcd-sucks 3y ago

It is a little surprising that in-office mandates aren't considered constructive dismissal