4 ms·

> and companies shouldn't break their backs to accommodate people. Why isn't the inverse equally true? That workers shouldn't have to break their back to acco

> and companies shouldn't break their backs to accommodate people. Why isn't the inverse equally true? That workers shouldn't have to break their back to accommodate a change in company policy? > You took the risk in maybe unclear situation, you bear the consequences if the risk doesn't pan out your way. Again, I think this is equally true going the other way. Companies allowed their workers to move away from the office, why don't they assume any risk that workers won't want to return? I get that there needs to be a balance of power, but I don't understand why any request from the company is valid by default and any request by workers is somehow an imposition that the workers need to justify. Why isn't the company asked to justify why workers need to RTO?

randomdata 2y ago
> Why isn't the company asked to justify why workers need to RTO? Well, we do know the state of New York offered the NYT (among others) tax incentives/subsidies earlier in the year. I can't imagine the state of New York will be happy if the workforce works from New Jersey (or Texas). Calling upon the workers to work in New York gives the state the economic activity it expects in return for the subsidies it offered. But does that make any difference to the workers? If they want to work remotely, whatever reason the NYT has is not their problem.