3 ms·

Why RTO mandates are layoffs in disguise: ‘Companies daring employees to quit’

39 points by pg_1234 3y ago

reaperman 3y ago
I had something similar happen when I was working overseas. I originally agreed to work 3 months on, 1 month off. The 3 months on were 90 days straight, no weekends or holidays. Then I’d get a month of no work to go home, renew my visa, and spend as I please. They changed it to 3 months on, 2 weeks off. Fully intending people would quit due to the untenable schedule and they could avoid paying severance / deferred benefits. Domestically, we really should have some kind of consideration for this. At minimum allow people who quit to collect unemployment benefits or something, and trigger any contractual severance clauses (which are fairly rare, I’ve never been offered a contract with one outside of that overseas job). Should also trigger things like California’s WARN act. I know they've changed it a bit to address things like this, but not quite sure what the details of that change is.
- tuatoru 3y ago
  How is "they changed it" a thing? Is a contract not a contract, a legally enforced agreement binding both parties?
  - reaperman 3y ago
    The 3 months on, 1 months off part was not specified in the contract. I didn't have any leverage to ask for modifications to the contract.
    - ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago
      Yeah, so there was your mistake. Also, no days off is illegal in many countries, regardless of what the contract says.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - reaperman 3y ago
        >Yeah, so there was your mistake. This is pretty dismissive. I had two job offers after college and I took the better one. Not sure how that was a mistake. > illegal in many countries This was in Saudi Arabia. That said, in the USA, where I'm from, there is no federal law that limits the number of days you can work in a row. Your views sound quite euro-centric, and I appreciate the work culture there, but it's not a work culture that I have ever had any access to.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rekabis 3y ago
If they are “daring employees to quit”, who are we to disappoint them? Let those Parasite Class C-Suite troglodytes run the company all by their lonesome. I’m sure that’ll be the first time they actually earned their obscenely overinflated paycheques in a damn long time. There is a lot of demand for workers out there, if you apply to jobs regardless of location or in-office, you should punt a ridiculously extreme relocation cost for you to move closer to their office. And even if you are within the region, add “transportation costs” to your wage demands to compensate you for your commute - yearly auto maintenance, insurance, all fuel, and a per-km cost that’s broadly in line with your hourly wage as the cherry on top. Make it worth your time to drive into the office.

39 points by pg_1234 3y ago

I had something similar happen when I was working overseas. I originally agreed to work 3 months on, 1 month off. The 3 months on were 90 days straight, no weekends or holidays. Then I’d get a month of no work to go home, renew my visa, and spend as I please. They changed it to 3 months on, 2 weeks off. Fully intending people would quit due to the untenable schedule and they could avoid paying severance / deferred benefits. Domestically, we really should have some kind of consideration for this. At minimum allow people who quit to collect unemployment benefits or something, and trigger any contractual severance clauses (which are fairly rare, I’ve never been offered a contract with one outside of that overseas job). Should also trigger things like California’s WARN act. I know they've changed it a bit to address things like this, but not quite sure what the details of that change is.

tuatoru 3y ago
How is "they changed it" a thing? Is a contract not a contract, a legally enforced agreement binding both parties?
- reaperman 3y ago
  The 3 months on, 1 months off part was not specified in the contract. I didn't have any leverage to ask for modifications to the contract.
  - ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago
    Yeah, so there was your mistake. Also, no days off is illegal in many countries, regardless of what the contract says.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - reaperman 3y ago
      >Yeah, so there was your mistake. This is pretty dismissive. I had two job offers after college and I took the better one. Not sure how that was a mistake. > illegal in many countries This was in Saudi Arabia. That said, in the USA, where I'm from, there is no federal law that limits the number of days you can work in a row. Your views sound quite euro-centric, and I appreciate the work culture there, but it's not a work culture that I have ever had any access to.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rekabis 3y ago

If they are “daring employees to quit”, who are we to disappoint them? Let those Parasite Class C-Suite troglodytes run the company all by their lonesome. I’m sure that’ll be the first time they actually earned their obscenely overinflated paycheques in a damn long time. There is a lot of demand for workers out there, if you apply to jobs regardless of location or in-office, you should punt a ridiculously extreme relocation cost for you to move closer to their office. And even if you are within the region, add “transportation costs” to your wage demands to compensate you for your commute - yearly auto maintenance, insurance, all fuel, and a per-km cost that’s broadly in line with your hourly wage as the cherry on top. Make it worth your time to drive into the office.