3 ms·
I don't know what the established criteria are for 'reasonable commuting distance' in the SF Bay area, but seems like a big forced transfer like this might need
by toast0 2y ago
I don't know what the established criteria are for 'reasonable commuting distance' in the SF Bay area, but seems like a big forced transfer like this might need a WARN act notice, which is going to get the company in the news for layoffs. And probably in the news for not providing the notice in a timely fashion, too.
This would be a bad look for a company that cared about how it looks.
- jorts 2y agoSF to San Jose would be a horrible commute via car, which not everyone has.
- nomdep 2y agoBecause they are paying SF rents? If they moved to San Jose wouldn’t they solve two problems at the same time?
- TechnicolorByte 2y agoIf you enjoy being bored to death, perhaps. Somehow I think the group of people who choose to live in SF have particular interests and desired amenities that make high rent worth it. E.g., walkable and lively neighborhoods, access to parks, events, etc.
- saagarjha 2y agoYou should check what rent in San Jose is.
- deeth_starr_v 2y agoNot to bad via 280
- toast0 2y agoFrom what I could tell, the 'standard' for reasonable commute measures from the employee's home, not from the original location to the other. But the federal WARN info says 'reasonable' varies by locale, and didn't offer any specifics. Moving the office is probably neutral or better for people on the Penisula. And may be neutral for parts of the East Bay. Depends on where exactly in San Jose the new office is too. Also, I was surprised by how light traffic was when I drove from Mountain View to SF last October during what I was expecting to be the morning rush hour. I don't recall what the reverse direction looked like, though. But my point was kind of to raise the likelyhood that this action was taken without regard for how it looks, and without regard for required notifications.