4 ms·

> the company has no obligation to keep an employee working in a remote context that the company doesn't favor anymore. Some people who were hired in as perman

> the company has no obligation to keep an employee working in a remote context that the company doesn't favor anymore. Some people who were hired in as permanent remote, now are being demanded to sell their homes and move to cities they’ve never been to before. Companies have no obligation to keep any USA-based employee working (other countries may have different laws), but some reasonable severance payouts would be much more appropriate than firing “for cause”!

idontknoworcare 3y ago
[dead]
cdchn 3y ago
Who is doing this precisely? I've heard a lot of people bemoan that they moved during the pandemic and now are being required to return to the office but I haven't heard of any instances where previously remote employees-- remote from BEFORE the pandemic-- are being required to move to central office locations.
- lwkl 3y ago
  The person that wrote the blogpost was hired as remote worker and was required to move to an office after the pandemic.
  - cdchn 3y ago
    And they don't say who it is, so this falls short of the "precisely" qualifier.
- reaperman 3y ago
  Amazon[0], for one. But they're not the only ones -- it does happen occasionally, mostly when a company makes a blanket policy "no more remote work, everyone back to the office!" (which makes less sense for those employees who were never at any point in an office to begin with). The author of the linked article for this HN post wrote: > I had been hired in 2019 for the cryptography team at a large tech company. I was hired as a 100% remote employee, with the understanding that I would work from my home in Florida. Then a pandemic started to happen (which continues to be a mass-disabling event despite what many politicians proclaim). In the Re: Amazon article linked at the bottom of my post, the employee says: > Now I'm being told I need to move to Seattle or switch teams, or I'm out of a job. I moved to this area 13 years ago. I own a house here. My partner has a career here. I've built a home here. 0: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-leaving-over-return-to-office-mandate-2023-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-leaving-over...
  - cdchn 3y ago
    So if we want to presume that the original linked article's author works for Amazon, we got 1: Amazon. Who else?
    - seattle_spring 3y ago
      Google, Lyft, Facebook
      - cdchn 3y ago
        I haven't seen anything about them requiring pre-pandemic remote employees to relocate post-pandemic, only people who moved after the pandemic WFH movement started. I'm genuinely interested in if they're going after this.
- joshchaney 3y ago
  This is exactly what happened to me. I worked from home for Wells Fargo for years prior to the pandemic. This year suddenly my status got changed and I was required to go into the office. First come first serve cubicles and none of my co-workers were even in the same state, let alone office. Years prior to the pandemic when I was in the office I had my own cubicle and could at least expect my chair would be the same and nobody had messed with the monitors on my desk. It's like working from an Internet cafe every day now.
  - cdchn 3y ago
    For the past 10 years or so I've been doing "hybrid WFH" where I negotiate 3 days max in-office (when I'm working somewhere with an office close to where I live) and I always get it agreed upon in my employment contract. My guess (and bias) would be that companies that would pull this switcheroo on employees would be larger orgs with faceless HR machinery and most wherewithal to dominate their employees (ie Amazon)
- kcatskcolbdi 3y ago
  It is quite literally the subject of the article you are commenting on.
  - cdchn 3y ago
    And they don't say who it is. Thats why I was asking precisely who is doing this. I want to know what kind of orgs would make a decision like this.
lazide 3y ago
This was always a risk at every company due to re-orgs, buyouts, or the whim of executives. Are employees right to be angry? Yeah. Do companies have the right to demand it? Yeah. Severance, etc. is always nice. In some cases it may even be required by contract or law, but that is rare. It seems like the knives are coming out now, and we’ll see who is left standing.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Give it time. The (RTO) companies are on the wrong side of history. Ideally these mandates are something the (employment) market will never forget. It will be interesting to see in the near future how many of the RTO execs at these companies will be whining about their struggles finding talent and/or having to pay a premium to attain and return the level of talent they need. Of course few, if any of these execs will admit they got it wrong. That the root of the problem was their heavy-handed mandates and how they compromised the brand in the (employment) market.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Eh, people forget. Heard about Blackwater lately? Or was it Xe? Or Academi? And they always complain about stuff like that, even when they aren’t playing games!
    - chiefalchemist 3y ago
      Yes and no. What needs to be factored in is, does the best / top talent forget? Or are they ones with more focus and memory? Does their marketability allow them to be more selective? I think you see where this is going :)
      - lazide 3y ago
        Oh I'm well aware. How many downturns have you lived through? It's rarely so easy when times get lean, but everyone has a different experience for sure!
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
> Some people who were hired in as permanent remote, now are being demanded to sell their homes and move to cities they’ve never been to before. No one is forcing you to sell your home. You could rent your home and move temporarily until you find a suitable remote replacement. Or, you could just quit outright.
dehrmann 3y ago
> Some people who were hired in as permanent remote, now are being demanded to sell their homes and move to cities they’ve never been to before. The standard advice is stay in the house at least five years. These people accepted permanent remote roles at companies that have been remote-friendly for only two years. The track record's not there; you can't reasonably assume that policy would continue indefinitely. It might, but it's clearly a risk.
- plagiarist 3y ago
  Why would anyone find it acceptable for a company to hire a remote employee but later change the contract? That's a massive pay cut. It's weird how companies expect loyalty but cannot even keep their word from what they claimed during hiring.

idontknoworcare 3y ago

[dead]

cdchn 3y ago

Who is doing this precisely? I've heard a lot of people bemoan that they moved during the pandemic and now are being required to return to the office but I haven't heard of any instances where previously remote employees-- remote from BEFORE the pandemic-- are being required to move to central office locations.

lwkl 3y ago
The person that wrote the blogpost was hired as remote worker and was required to move to an office after the pandemic.
- cdchn 3y ago
  And they don't say who it is, so this falls short of the "precisely" qualifier.
reaperman 3y ago
Amazon[0], for one. But they're not the only ones -- it does happen occasionally, mostly when a company makes a blanket policy "no more remote work, everyone back to the office!" (which makes less sense for those employees who were never at any point in an office to begin with). The author of the linked article for this HN post wrote: > I had been hired in 2019 for the cryptography team at a large tech company. I was hired as a 100% remote employee, with the understanding that I would work from my home in Florida. Then a pandemic started to happen (which continues to be a mass-disabling event despite what many politicians proclaim). In the Re: Amazon article linked at the bottom of my post, the employee says: > Now I'm being told I need to move to Seattle or switch teams, or I'm out of a job. I moved to this area 13 years ago. I own a house here. My partner has a career here. I've built a home here. 0: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-leaving-over-return-to-office-mandate-2023-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-leaving-over...
- cdchn 3y ago
  So if we want to presume that the original linked article's author works for Amazon, we got 1: Amazon. Who else?
  - seattle_spring 3y ago
    Google, Lyft, Facebook
    - cdchn 3y ago
      I haven't seen anything about them requiring pre-pandemic remote employees to relocate post-pandemic, only people who moved after the pandemic WFH movement started. I'm genuinely interested in if they're going after this.
joshchaney 3y ago
This is exactly what happened to me. I worked from home for Wells Fargo for years prior to the pandemic. This year suddenly my status got changed and I was required to go into the office. First come first serve cubicles and none of my co-workers were even in the same state, let alone office. Years prior to the pandemic when I was in the office I had my own cubicle and could at least expect my chair would be the same and nobody had messed with the monitors on my desk. It's like working from an Internet cafe every day now.
- cdchn 3y ago
  For the past 10 years or so I've been doing "hybrid WFH" where I negotiate 3 days max in-office (when I'm working somewhere with an office close to where I live) and I always get it agreed upon in my employment contract. My guess (and bias) would be that companies that would pull this switcheroo on employees would be larger orgs with faceless HR machinery and most wherewithal to dominate their employees (ie Amazon)
kcatskcolbdi 3y ago
It is quite literally the subject of the article you are commenting on.
- cdchn 3y ago
  And they don't say who it is. Thats why I was asking precisely who is doing this. I want to know what kind of orgs would make a decision like this.

lazide 3y ago

This was always a risk at every company due to re-orgs, buyouts, or the whim of executives. Are employees right to be angry? Yeah. Do companies have the right to demand it? Yeah. Severance, etc. is always nice. In some cases it may even be required by contract or law, but that is rare. It seems like the knives are coming out now, and we’ll see who is left standing.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
Give it time. The (RTO) companies are on the wrong side of history. Ideally these mandates are something the (employment) market will never forget. It will be interesting to see in the near future how many of the RTO execs at these companies will be whining about their struggles finding talent and/or having to pay a premium to attain and return the level of talent they need. Of course few, if any of these execs will admit they got it wrong. That the root of the problem was their heavy-handed mandates and how they compromised the brand in the (employment) market.
- lazide 3y ago
  Eh, people forget. Heard about Blackwater lately? Or was it Xe? Or Academi? And they always complain about stuff like that, even when they aren’t playing games!
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Yes and no. What needs to be factored in is, does the best / top talent forget? Or are they ones with more focus and memory? Does their marketability allow them to be more selective? I think you see where this is going :)
    - lazide 3y ago
      Oh I'm well aware. How many downturns have you lived through? It's rarely so easy when times get lean, but everyone has a different experience for sure!

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

> Some people who were hired in as permanent remote, now are being demanded to sell their homes and move to cities they’ve never been to before. No one is forcing you to sell your home. You could rent your home and move temporarily until you find a suitable remote replacement. Or, you could just quit outright.

dehrmann 3y ago

> Some people who were hired in as permanent remote, now are being demanded to sell their homes and move to cities they’ve never been to before. The standard advice is stay in the house at least five years. These people accepted permanent remote roles at companies that have been remote-friendly for only two years. The track record's not there; you can't reasonably assume that policy would continue indefinitely. It might, but it's clearly a risk.

plagiarist 3y ago
Why would anyone find it acceptable for a company to hire a remote employee but later change the contract? That's a massive pay cut. It's weird how companies expect loyalty but cannot even keep their word from what they claimed during hiring.