5 ms·

I’m confused at how it is that people actually think that an employer doesn’t have the ability to dictate to its employees where their working location will be.

I’m confused at how it is that people actually think that an employer doesn’t have the ability to dictate to its employees where their working location will be. They did it in early 2020 when they sent us all home. You are not forced to work at the location they specify—your employment in the US is always at will, so just quit and find another gig that suits you.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
The person wasn’t fired for refusing to work in a specific location, but organizing their coworkers against resigning in the face of various abuses and a de facto layoff. The latter is protected under US labor law while the former (depending on the circumstances or terms of their employment) is generally not.
kevingadd 3y ago
If your employer made promises about work location and/or work hours, they can't just suddenly go back on those promises and demand that you immediately upend your entire life to comply. Even if your employment agreement said they are allowed to do that, it may not be legally enforceable. What they can definitely do is say "anyone who can't show up to work in this office is getting laid off", and then perform a mass layoff in compliance with the law (N days advance notice and/or severance, etc). Claiming that if you choose to dance to a puppeteer's tune no matter what kind of demands they make on short notice you have "effectively resigned" is not a healthy employee/employer relationship and any boss doing that should expect to get harassed by the NLRB. This is all separate from the question of whether X retaliated against people for organizing, which is definitely an illegal thing to do.
- postalrat 3y ago
  Of course they can. Just the same as you can quit and expect them to go through the trouble of finding someone to replace you.
  - kevingadd 3y ago
    That is an individual one on one decision to terminate employment, which is different from a company wide email telling dozens or hundreds of people that they have "effectively resigned".
    - kcplate 3y ago
      But did they do that? Employer changed a policy, if people individually complied with the company policy they continued their employment. If they didn’t comply, they were insubordinate and were fired. That seems like a one on one decision to me. How many company policies can you intentionally break and maintain employment, at any company, pretty much anywhere?
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    Friend of mine is a PA, always wanted to move to Alaska. Found his dream job, signed offer, sold house, found school for kids, etc. Phone call 48 hours prior to them moving. “The clinic has been sold to new owners and they are evaluating all finances and rescinding employment offers, including yours. They’ll give you 30 days to repay the relocation assistance”. No, they gave him far more than that. Three months salary, closing costs for the house they’d bought in Alaska, and no relocation repayment.
paulryanrogers 3y ago
Considering that healthcare is tied to employment in the US, a job change is high friction. Relocating ones family and life are as well. When companies change a policy like WFH to RTO they're asking a lot. And often it's a stealth layoff to avoid regulations.
- talldatethrow 3y ago
  Is it actually tied to employment? It seems you can easily keep paying your own after leaving a job these days.
  - elashri 3y ago
    Maybe only in this context for high paid tech jobs at big tech companies. But I doubt that this is possible on the salaries of most other jobs or locations outside big tech. The world outside this bubble is mostly different. Maybe highly paid finance jobs would be another exception
    - jmye 3y ago
      Getting an individual ACA plan is typically easier the less you make. You’ll typically be able to get a bronze plan for whatever you were paying for your share.
      - bugglebeetle 3y ago
        The ACÁ plans are largely trash such that you can easily end up paying more out of pocket than you would with a COBRA plan. Likewise, there are myriad issues with continuity of care when changing providers.
        jmye 3y ago
        That’s absolutely untrue (unless you’ve paid significantly into your deductible, in which case COBRA may be the right way to go). Most HRA plans from your employer are virtually indistinguishable from what you can get on the exchange. While there can be continuity of care issues, every portal allows you to check that the plan your selecting covers critical doctors. It’s further no different than any issue you’d face simply changing employers. The clearest thing you learn working in healthcare is how poorly people understand the ACA.
ensignavenger 3y ago
If I have an agreement with my employer to work at location X, and they decide I have to start working at location Y, they have that right, but I also have the right not to quit and force them to fire me, so I can collect unemployment. Laternatively, my employer could offer a severance package so that we part ways on friendly terms. I am certainly under no obligation to resign.
- dmix 3y ago
  This complaint has nothing to do with whether someone was told to work at x or x location anyway. The complaint is typical organizing/unionizing type stuff. > The NLRB protects workers’ legal right to engage in “concerted activity,” which is when two or more coworkers band together to address workplace issues. The girl allegedly tried to "organize" other workers on Slack by telling employees who were already planning to resign to "not quit but to get fired".
  - ensignavenger 3y ago
    I was responding to the parent comment. The parent comment was likely just making an observation in general, not necessarily about the NRLB complaint.
  - kcplate 3y ago
    I think the challenge will be for the employee to try and show that workplace conditions vs, WFH are so much worse to warrant organizing mass subordination as a way to improve it.
    - dmix 3y ago
      Honestly if it's just the two messages they listed where she: > Tweeted: “Don’t resign, let him fire you. You gain literally nothing out of resignation.” > posted on Slack: “Don’t, be fired. Seriously.” This just reads like someone giving advice to workers so they can get more $$. Without some more context this sounds like some hard spin by NRLB as if she was "organizing" workers against a "workplace issue". But I guess forcing a company to fire people is a expression of labour rights or something.
happytoexplain 3y ago
The word "ability" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. You might want to specify what is wrong with challenging this "ability", in the case at hand, or maybe generally.
metabagel 3y ago
That’s one way of looking at it. Another way is to say that we were promised thus-and-such and now you’re (the company) reneging on that promise. We’re not going to quit, because even though you have the right, we think you’re wrong to go back on your word, and we’re going to try to change your mind.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kcplate 3y ago
  > We’re not going to quit Ok. So be fired then. If you want to put a termination taint your employment history for the same result, that is certainly your right.
bandyaboot 3y ago
Or you try to organize a collective response that maximizes your and your fellow employees’ power to influence the decision. That’s a legally protected response and is the entire point of the article.
Zigurd 3y ago
That's not what X did that's illegal. They illegally fired workers for coordinating. That, illegally, suppresses unionization by suppressing all forms of coordinated action. Workers have a right to collective action, and to organize.

bugglebeetle 3y ago

The person wasn’t fired for refusing to work in a specific location, but organizing their coworkers against resigning in the face of various abuses and a de facto layoff. The latter is protected under US labor law while the former (depending on the circumstances or terms of their employment) is generally not.

kevingadd 3y ago

If your employer made promises about work location and/or work hours, they can't just suddenly go back on those promises and demand that you immediately upend your entire life to comply. Even if your employment agreement said they are allowed to do that, it may not be legally enforceable. What they can definitely do is say "anyone who can't show up to work in this office is getting laid off", and then perform a mass layoff in compliance with the law (N days advance notice and/or severance, etc). Claiming that if you choose to dance to a puppeteer's tune no matter what kind of demands they make on short notice you have "effectively resigned" is not a healthy employee/employer relationship and any boss doing that should expect to get harassed by the NLRB. This is all separate from the question of whether X retaliated against people for organizing, which is definitely an illegal thing to do.

postalrat 3y ago
Of course they can. Just the same as you can quit and expect them to go through the trouble of finding someone to replace you.
- kevingadd 3y ago
  That is an individual one on one decision to terminate employment, which is different from a company wide email telling dozens or hundreds of people that they have "effectively resigned".
  - kcplate 3y ago
    But did they do that? Employer changed a policy, if people individually complied with the company policy they continued their employment. If they didn’t comply, they were insubordinate and were fired. That seems like a one on one decision to me. How many company policies can you intentionally break and maintain employment, at any company, pretty much anywhere?
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  Friend of mine is a PA, always wanted to move to Alaska. Found his dream job, signed offer, sold house, found school for kids, etc. Phone call 48 hours prior to them moving. “The clinic has been sold to new owners and they are evaluating all finances and rescinding employment offers, including yours. They’ll give you 30 days to repay the relocation assistance”. No, they gave him far more than that. Three months salary, closing costs for the house they’d bought in Alaska, and no relocation repayment.

paulryanrogers 3y ago

Considering that healthcare is tied to employment in the US, a job change is high friction. Relocating ones family and life are as well. When companies change a policy like WFH to RTO they're asking a lot. And often it's a stealth layoff to avoid regulations.

talldatethrow 3y ago
Is it actually tied to employment? It seems you can easily keep paying your own after leaving a job these days.
- elashri 3y ago
  Maybe only in this context for high paid tech jobs at big tech companies. But I doubt that this is possible on the salaries of most other jobs or locations outside big tech. The world outside this bubble is mostly different. Maybe highly paid finance jobs would be another exception
  - jmye 3y ago
    Getting an individual ACA plan is typically easier the less you make. You’ll typically be able to get a bronze plan for whatever you were paying for your share.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      The ACÁ plans are largely trash such that you can easily end up paying more out of pocket than you would with a COBRA plan. Likewise, there are myriad issues with continuity of care when changing providers.
      - jmye 3y ago
        That’s absolutely untrue (unless you’ve paid significantly into your deductible, in which case COBRA may be the right way to go). Most HRA plans from your employer are virtually indistinguishable from what you can get on the exchange. While there can be continuity of care issues, every portal allows you to check that the plan your selecting covers critical doctors. It’s further no different than any issue you’d face simply changing employers. The clearest thing you learn working in healthcare is how poorly people understand the ACA.

ensignavenger 3y ago

If I have an agreement with my employer to work at location X, and they decide I have to start working at location Y, they have that right, but I also have the right not to quit and force them to fire me, so I can collect unemployment. Laternatively, my employer could offer a severance package so that we part ways on friendly terms. I am certainly under no obligation to resign.

dmix 3y ago
This complaint has nothing to do with whether someone was told to work at x or x location anyway. The complaint is typical organizing/unionizing type stuff. > The NLRB protects workers’ legal right to engage in “concerted activity,” which is when two or more coworkers band together to address workplace issues. The girl allegedly tried to "organize" other workers on Slack by telling employees who were already planning to resign to "not quit but to get fired".
- ensignavenger 3y ago
  I was responding to the parent comment. The parent comment was likely just making an observation in general, not necessarily about the NRLB complaint.
- kcplate 3y ago
  I think the challenge will be for the employee to try and show that workplace conditions vs, WFH are so much worse to warrant organizing mass subordination as a way to improve it.
  - dmix 3y ago
    Honestly if it's just the two messages they listed where she: > Tweeted: “Don’t resign, let him fire you. You gain literally nothing out of resignation.” > posted on Slack: “Don’t, be fired. Seriously.” This just reads like someone giving advice to workers so they can get more $$. Without some more context this sounds like some hard spin by NRLB as if she was "organizing" workers against a "workplace issue". But I guess forcing a company to fire people is a expression of labour rights or something.

happytoexplain 3y ago

The word "ability" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. You might want to specify what is wrong with challenging this "ability", in the case at hand, or maybe generally.

metabagel 3y ago

That’s one way of looking at it. Another way is to say that we were promised thus-and-such and now you’re (the company) reneging on that promise. We’re not going to quit, because even though you have the right, we think you’re wrong to go back on your word, and we’re going to try to change your mind.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kcplate 3y ago
> We’re not going to quit Ok. So be fired then. If you want to put a termination taint your employment history for the same result, that is certainly your right.

bandyaboot 3y ago

Or you try to organize a collective response that maximizes your and your fellow employees’ power to influence the decision. That’s a legally protected response and is the entire point of the article.

Zigurd 3y ago

That's not what X did that's illegal. They illegally fired workers for coordinating. That, illegally, suppresses unionization by suppressing all forms of coordinated action. Workers have a right to collective action, and to organize.