6 ms·

Constructive dismissal is apparently only legal if you do it at enormous scale.

by teeray 2y ago

vehemenz 2y ago
Yes, but constructive dismissal is only relevant if returning to the office constitutes a hostile work environment, which it wouldn't if the original terms of employment included office attendance. Inconvenience isn't an argument.
- dingnuts 2y ago
  WFH has been normal for almost half a decade now. I changed jobs and stipulated remaining remote in that time, and I suspect my employer doesn't care. They have begun talking about RTO. Here's the thing: it's not JUST inconvenient. It's a pay cut, full stop. I have to pay to commute, one way or the other, in both time and money. Acting like this only has to do with convenience is some real bootlicker shit
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
    It is also the most dangerous thing I do in a day. Nearly every single day, there is a traffic accident on my route. Through no fault of my own, someday that could be me smeared on the road.
  - teeray 2y ago
    > it's not JUST inconvenient. It's a pay cut, full stop. Never mind the ongoing state income tax implications of being forced to work in a physical location, which can greatly impact the amount of take-home pay you have.
  - vehemenz 2y ago
    I'm considering the employer's position. If a bunch of my employees were working six-hour days and communication was suffering at the office, then I would feel justified to institute RTO. As long as it's not meant as an indirect layoff AND the employees were hired for on-site work originally, I genuinely do not see the problem. Of course, one might argue that employers should "know" that employees will quit, but honestly, are employers supposed gauge the level of WFH cultishness before making a routine business decision? It's ridiculous. Yes, one can argue that it's a "pay cut, full stop" just as the employer can argue that they are getting less effective employees during WFH, or that one's unearned "raise" during COVID is being rescinded. I'm not a cultist, so these are positions that need to be argued for and earned. No foot-stomping. The employers should get a say.
- supriyo-biswas 2y ago
  That may be the legal definition, but creating difficulties and hurdles for the employee so that they leave also looks very much like it, if you ask me.
- CptFribble 2y ago
  If WFH was accepted corporate policy, and allowed for moving large distances away, then reversing back to RTO is not just an inconvenience, it's as much a life-upending disruption as moving for a new job.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  It’s still not constructive dismissal in any state I know of. Management is allowed to change strategy, and deciding that having people in office is better for the business is sufficiently good cover. Using return to office as a way to make people quit is also not a new strategy. Even before Covid, it was an often used tactic to trim headcount. Another common tactic is moving the office to a different location entirely, and that also is not constructive dismissal.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >but constructive dismissal is only relevant if returning to the office constitutes a hostile work environment That's not true, constructive dismissal happens when any part of your job significantly changes and you are forced to accept it or quit. Changing a job from WFH to RTO is a very significant change, especially if you were hired directly to WFH and never worked in the office as part of the job. It won't stop them from firing you, but will stop them from blocking your unemployment claims.
  - tux1968 2y ago
    RTO, means Return To Office, which means it's applying to people who started out working in the office. And by your definition, when jobs changed from the office to WFH, it constituted constructive dismissal, since it was a significant change; but that is just silly.
    - Suppafly 2y ago
      >RTO, means Return To Office, which means it's applying to people who started out working in the office. Not necessarily. The company itself is moving it's workforce from home back to the office, but lots of people were hired during the WFH phase of these companies operations, so RTO is a new situation for them. We're what, 4 years into WFH now? A lot of companies have probably turned over half their staff in that time. Even the older employees might be 'returning' to a completely different building than they originally were hired to work in, since many companies gave up their leases or sold their buildings during the height of WFH.
    - petsfed 2y ago
      RTO is often applied to an organization, even if elements of it were never in an office. Anecdotally, I've heard of quite a few people who were hired as remote, then their org did and RTO, and the HR response amounted to "tough shit, move on your own dime, or find work elsewhere".
      - bravetraveler 2y ago
        Happened to me and at least two executives. One had just built a house. Insane. The same people tried to tell me I could ignore it. I said, "Dude, both of you couldn't" and found work that works instead. Happily remote and not wasting another productive second on this.
- pwillia7 2y ago
  Is it not hostile that they wanted a significant % of those they asked to no longer be employed there, spurred by the deliberate intentional actions of the company?
- jihiggins 2y ago
  RTO in and of itself is hostile. Especially when there is still a highly contagious disease running rampant. It might not _legally_ constitute a hostile work environment, but it is _literally_ hostile.
  - Ferret7446 2y ago
    Are you talking about covid, right now in August 2024? I wasn't aware that anyone was still living in fear of covid; my observation is that literally everyone, in every country has moved past it.
    - jihiggins 2y ago
      Sorry, didn't see your reply till now. It's not literally everyone. Immunocompromised people who have managed to survive are often still afraid of catching Covid. How little most people care means that those who are worried have a difficult time existing in public spaces. Especially with the constant social pressure to act like Covid is over. You're not going to see people who are worried about Covid as often, because... they are worried about Covid. This was the case early on, too, though! Covid is _much_ more likely to kill people in marginalized groups. And while marginalized deaths still show up statistically, they are going to be more hidden in the day to day. New Covid variants still cause severe long-term effects. From what I’ve read, the consensus seems to be “we have no idea what all of the long-term consequences will be, but they’re looking worrisome.” Covid is not reported on as much now, but this information isn't from like, fringe sources or anything. There is less news about Covid now because nobody wants to think or read about Covid anymore. e.g. a quick search gives me: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/researchers-are-still-untangling-the-risks-of-catching-covid-over-and-over-1.6978689 https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/researchers-are-still-untangl... So, while most people may have moved on, I think the RTO movement is still hostile and coercive. Honestly, imo most people having moved on is also largely due to coercive forces.
pton_xd 2y ago
Constructive dismissal should be met with malicious compliance. I wonder what the PFML / FMLA claims look like graphed year over year.
- giantg2 2y ago
  Most places would have unpaid leave for those options, so it would hurt the worker more than the employer in most cases.
- duxup 2y ago
  Better to just find a job you want to work at ... Reward the places that do it right with your efforts.
  - RandallBrown 2y ago
    Well sure, but that takes time.
ozim 2y ago
Unfortunately we still live in legal environment where work from office is the norm, so if someone is just an employee not a contractor and not some b2b - all legal setup is that employer sets up where and how you work. There is no way you can disagree and "expecting to work from the office" doesn't constitute "hostile work conditions" it is just the norm. For full time employees all laws for remote work is quickly cobbled patchwork that employer can cut right away by saying now they expect RTO and I would be seriously surprised if any employee wins lawsuit.
- paranoidrobot 2y ago
  If remote or hybrid work is important to you, put it in your contract. If an employer is not willing to do that then it's not really a remote/hybrid role. Once it's in your contract then it won't matter about RTO demands for the workforce, because they don't apply to you.
pwillia7 2y ago
The law can be whatever you want when money is speech

Constructive dismissal is apparently only legal if you do it at enormous scale.

by teeray 2y ago

Constructive dismissal is apparently only legal if you do it at enormous scale.

Yes, but constructive dismissal is only relevant if returning to the office constitutes a hostile work environment, which it wouldn't if the original terms of employment included office attendance. Inconvenience isn't an argument.

dingnuts 2y ago
WFH has been normal for almost half a decade now. I changed jobs and stipulated remaining remote in that time, and I suspect my employer doesn't care. They have begun talking about RTO. Here's the thing: it's not JUST inconvenient. It's a pay cut, full stop. I have to pay to commute, one way or the other, in both time and money. Acting like this only has to do with convenience is some real bootlicker shit
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
  It is also the most dangerous thing I do in a day. Nearly every single day, there is a traffic accident on my route. Through no fault of my own, someday that could be me smeared on the road.
- teeray 2y ago
  > it's not JUST inconvenient. It's a pay cut, full stop. Never mind the ongoing state income tax implications of being forced to work in a physical location, which can greatly impact the amount of take-home pay you have.
- vehemenz 2y ago
  I'm considering the employer's position. If a bunch of my employees were working six-hour days and communication was suffering at the office, then I would feel justified to institute RTO. As long as it's not meant as an indirect layoff AND the employees were hired for on-site work originally, I genuinely do not see the problem. Of course, one might argue that employers should "know" that employees will quit, but honestly, are employers supposed gauge the level of WFH cultishness before making a routine business decision? It's ridiculous. Yes, one can argue that it's a "pay cut, full stop" just as the employer can argue that they are getting less effective employees during WFH, or that one's unearned "raise" during COVID is being rescinded. I'm not a cultist, so these are positions that need to be argued for and earned. No foot-stomping. The employers should get a say.
supriyo-biswas 2y ago
That may be the legal definition, but creating difficulties and hurdles for the employee so that they leave also looks very much like it, if you ask me.
CptFribble 2y ago
If WFH was accepted corporate policy, and allowed for moving large distances away, then reversing back to RTO is not just an inconvenience, it's as much a life-upending disruption as moving for a new job.
lotsofpulp 2y ago
It’s still not constructive dismissal in any state I know of. Management is allowed to change strategy, and deciding that having people in office is better for the business is sufficiently good cover. Using return to office as a way to make people quit is also not a new strategy. Even before Covid, it was an often used tactic to trim headcount. Another common tactic is moving the office to a different location entirely, and that also is not constructive dismissal.
Suppafly 2y ago
>but constructive dismissal is only relevant if returning to the office constitutes a hostile work environment That's not true, constructive dismissal happens when any part of your job significantly changes and you are forced to accept it or quit. Changing a job from WFH to RTO is a very significant change, especially if you were hired directly to WFH and never worked in the office as part of the job. It won't stop them from firing you, but will stop them from blocking your unemployment claims.
- tux1968 2y ago
  RTO, means Return To Office, which means it's applying to people who started out working in the office. And by your definition, when jobs changed from the office to WFH, it constituted constructive dismissal, since it was a significant change; but that is just silly.
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >RTO, means Return To Office, which means it's applying to people who started out working in the office. Not necessarily. The company itself is moving it's workforce from home back to the office, but lots of people were hired during the WFH phase of these companies operations, so RTO is a new situation for them. We're what, 4 years into WFH now? A lot of companies have probably turned over half their staff in that time. Even the older employees might be 'returning' to a completely different building than they originally were hired to work in, since many companies gave up their leases or sold their buildings during the height of WFH.
  - petsfed 2y ago
    RTO is often applied to an organization, even if elements of it were never in an office. Anecdotally, I've heard of quite a few people who were hired as remote, then their org did and RTO, and the HR response amounted to "tough shit, move on your own dime, or find work elsewhere".
    - bravetraveler 2y ago
      Happened to me and at least two executives. One had just built a house. Insane. The same people tried to tell me I could ignore it. I said, "Dude, both of you couldn't" and found work that works instead. Happily remote and not wasting another productive second on this.
pwillia7 2y ago
Is it not hostile that they wanted a significant % of those they asked to no longer be employed there, spurred by the deliberate intentional actions of the company?
jihiggins 2y ago
RTO in and of itself is hostile. Especially when there is still a highly contagious disease running rampant. It might not _legally_ constitute a hostile work environment, but it is _literally_ hostile.
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  Are you talking about covid, right now in August 2024? I wasn't aware that anyone was still living in fear of covid; my observation is that literally everyone, in every country has moved past it.
  - jihiggins 2y ago
    Sorry, didn't see your reply till now. It's not literally everyone. Immunocompromised people who have managed to survive are often still afraid of catching Covid. How little most people care means that those who are worried have a difficult time existing in public spaces. Especially with the constant social pressure to act like Covid is over. You're not going to see people who are worried about Covid as often, because... they are worried about Covid. This was the case early on, too, though! Covid is _much_ more likely to kill people in marginalized groups. And while marginalized deaths still show up statistically, they are going to be more hidden in the day to day. New Covid variants still cause severe long-term effects. From what I’ve read, the consensus seems to be “we have no idea what all of the long-term consequences will be, but they’re looking worrisome.” Covid is not reported on as much now, but this information isn't from like, fringe sources or anything. There is less news about Covid now because nobody wants to think or read about Covid anymore. e.g. a quick search gives me: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/researchers-are-still-untangling-the-risks-of-catching-covid-over-and-over-1.6978689 https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/researchers-are-still-untangl... So, while most people may have moved on, I think the RTO movement is still hostile and coercive. Honestly, imo most people having moved on is also largely due to coercive forces.

pton_xd 2y ago

Constructive dismissal should be met with malicious compliance. I wonder what the PFML / FMLA claims look like graphed year over year.

giantg2 2y ago
Most places would have unpaid leave for those options, so it would hurt the worker more than the employer in most cases.
duxup 2y ago
Better to just find a job you want to work at ... Reward the places that do it right with your efforts.
- RandallBrown 2y ago
  Well sure, but that takes time.

ozim 2y ago

Unfortunately we still live in legal environment where work from office is the norm, so if someone is just an employee not a contractor and not some b2b - all legal setup is that employer sets up where and how you work. There is no way you can disagree and "expecting to work from the office" doesn't constitute "hostile work conditions" it is just the norm. For full time employees all laws for remote work is quickly cobbled patchwork that employer can cut right away by saying now they expect RTO and I would be seriously surprised if any employee wins lawsuit.

paranoidrobot 2y ago
If remote or hybrid work is important to you, put it in your contract. If an employer is not willing to do that then it's not really a remote/hybrid role. Once it's in your contract then it won't matter about RTO demands for the workforce, because they don't apply to you.

pwillia7 2y ago

The law can be whatever you want when money is speech