4 ms·
Right now, RTO mandates can work simply because many employers _want_ to shed staff. It's a tidy way to drop a few people without having to make hard individual
by pimterry 2y ago
Right now, RTO mandates can work simply because many employers _want_ to shed staff. It's a tidy way to drop a few people without having to make hard individual decisions, in a form you can justify as keeping 'the most committed' and 'improving productivity'.
Anywhere where it's an employee's market though, anywhere that employers are really fighting to hire or retain good staff and they _could_ do WFH, RTO is out of the question. I suspect medium-term those days will return for tech (once interest rates drop and funding reappears) and all of a sudden WFH will spike enormously once again, as a baseline perk required to compete when hiring good experienced staff.
Hopefully this pendulum won't swing back and forth too many times before the industry settles on consistent norms, but I wouldn't be surprised.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y agoIf there's anything to be learned from this, it's that when you're a hot commodity you need to get the things you want in writing as part of your employment agreement.
- paxys 2y agoIf you are employed at will then that employment agreement isn't worth the paper it is written on.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y agoYes and no. Breach of contract is a breach of contract.
- paxys 2y agoIt's not a breach of contract if the company is allowed to change the contract whenever they want.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y agoI don't want to push too hard, because it may be against HN code, but how many workplace disputes were you a part of and was it in US? I think it is a relevant question here though.
- paxys 2y agoAt-will employment is standard in 49/50 US states, and this forum is almost entirely American, so that is safe to assume by default. If you have a counterexample to share (where someone successfully sued a company to enforce terms of an at-will contract) then why don't you?
- saalweachter 2y agoIt's not necessarily about being fired or not; it's about being fired for cause or not. Even in at-will states, you typically need to be fired without cause to be eligible for unemployment benefits. If you quit because you don't want to return to office or are fired for refusing to return to office, you get nothing; if they fire you for not returning to office when your contract says you are allowed to WFH, you remain eligible for unemployment and perhaps severance.
- xigency 2y agoSo to reiterate, if we feel we are a hot commodity we may be entitled to unemployment insurance. That's a big yikes.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y agoHuh? That is one weird take. You are entitled to unemployment insurance, because you pay into that insurance pool. You may have to fight over the grey area every so often, because life happens, but how I feel about myself have nothing to do with it. To be frank, I am struggling to understand your perspective. Could you elaborate?
- up2isomorphism 2y ago“Right now, RTO mandates can work simply because many employers _want_ to shed staff.” It should be as long as there are sufficient job candidates are willing to accept RTO, the employer can continue to do so. There are significant less people leaving these companies with RTO mandate than anticipated.