4 ms·

It's more insidious than that. Being forced to RTO across the country, then immediately laid off after I uprooted my life to do so, all while knowing the layof

It's more insidious than that. Being forced to RTO across the country, then immediately laid off after I uprooted my life to do so, all while knowing the layoffs were planned while they were telling me to move across the country, is fucked.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
It’s happening because employers are desperate to get their power back while workers have no rights. It also makes it harder to leave an org, as orgs are also desperate to hold on to and develop existing talent due to forward looking working age population demographics. This is a desperate immune response. (also why employers are trying to staff up offices offshore in LATAM and India) Edit: @tbrownaw all of the responses to your inquiry are accurate.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  > It’s happening because employers are desperate to get their power back while workers have no rights. What does this mean in concrete terms? What useful power do they gain based on physical presence, and what rights are currently absent but coming (back?) soon?
  - scott_w 2y ago
    > Being forced to RTO across the country, then immediately laid off after I uprooted my life to do so Definitely power there if you know your staff have just uprooted their lives and now depend on you for their immediate term existence…
  - PantaloonFlames 2y ago
    The power in the market for labor. If remote labor is the norm, then every tech company has to compete with every other, across all geographies. If local labor is required, the employers can manage or restrict their competitive environment. There are fewer options for the employee. The bulk layoffs of the past couple of years have a similar effect - gaining power. It makes every employee a little more conscious that their employment is provisional and conditional. But I think RTO goes beyond just market power gains. There are many workers who are conscientious, attentive, and dedicated. For each one of those there are plenty who are just punching their time card. I’m no expert but it seems to me that RTO gives the employer and mid-level managers better visibility into all of that dynamic. But RTO fights against the reality that employers have constructed distributed teams, with people working from all over the globe on the same project. If that’s the case, what is the difference whether I work from my home office, or a hotel desk space in a big building alongside people I don’t know.?
    - brookst 2y ago
      > If remote labor is the norm, then every tech company has to compete with every other, across all geographies. If local labor is required, the employers can manage or restrict their competitive environment. Doesn’t that seem backwards? A company that supports remote work has a worldwide talent pool.l, including lower cost geographies. A company that insists on RTO can only hire locally, so has less talent available and can’t arbitrage labor costs. I think RTO makes no sense, but I don’t see how it gives employers more power.
      - jackcosgrove 2y ago
        I have thought about this too. * Remote workers aren't actually a worldwide labor force because of time zones, so the competition on the labor side is less than in theory. * Remote work diminished the difference in liquidity between labor and capital markets. Capital is by nature more liquid than labor, and being more liquid gives you an advantage. As you say, the competitive pressures exist in both markets, and maybe this is a wash in terms of power. * Remote workers can pay off mortgages faster, leading to more early retirements. I still think the primary reason is a desire to manage according to the old style, which is a different argument than the GP.
      - alpha_squared 2y ago
        > Doesn’t that seem backwards? A company that supports remote work has a worldwide talent pool.l, including lower cost geographies. Humans are not just replaceable cogs. When you hire someone, there are several things built into the assumption of that work that we take for granted. For example, federal holidays or work culture. The US is notorious for accepting overwork as the norm (people even brag about working 60-hour weeks) where that's just not acceptable in other parts of the world. That's obviously not true everywhere (e.g. 9-9-6 in China), but is true in enough places that it's not trivial to just swap in person A from country X with person B in country Y. That's not even touching on labor laws, language barriers (e.g. understanding office lingo like "circle back"), or value structure. The latter is huge where Americans care a lot about their jobs and careers and most parts of the world don't have the concept of a career.
      - 2y ago
  - lukevp 2y ago
    Not OP, but RTO forces geographic centralization and reduces mobility of their employees. If you can work remotely then you have a much larger pool. And I think that opening the door to remote work made employees realize that there was some power and some negotiation to be had on working conditions (basically our generation’s version of the 40 hr work week in response to the Industrial Revolution)
    - pm90 2y ago
      This is an underrated comment. I like the framing of Remote as Millenial’s 40hr workweek. In the face of declining worker conditions we made the best of a crisis (pandemic) and showed that working remotely was viable for most jobs. But no, the ruling class could not tolerate those gains. My prediction is that as soon as interest rates fall, employers will be reintroducing “flexibility” to lure workers and attract talent. And at that point it might become more established.
  - Jordan-117 2y ago
    Office work requires living within commute distance of the office, which is much more expensive and keeps the employee tethered to their job. Remote workers are less threatened by layoffs because they can choose to live in a lower COL area and have their pick of other remote-friendly jobs rather than being limited to other companies in their metro or having to uproot their lives to move somewhere else. This is on top of the perceived benefits employers have surveiling and micromanaging office work. As for workers having fewer protections rn, gestures in the general direction of DC.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >Office work requires living within commute distance of the office, which is much more expensive and keeps the employee tethered to their job. Remote workers are less threatened by layoffs because they can choose to live in a lower COL area and have their pick of other remote-friendly jobs rather than being limited to other companies in their metro or having to uproot their lives to move somewhere else. This doesn't make any sense. Remote jobs are... remote. Moving to mountain view or whatever doesn't make you "limited to other companies in their metro". You can still find remote jobs, but now you have the additional option of in-person jobs in the bay area.
      - i_am_proteus 2y ago
        If you move to Mountain View, you need to be able to afford to live in Mountain View. That takes a lot of remote jobs off the table, or substantially diminishes their prospects. If you live in Omaha and work remotely, far more remote jobs are available.
      - photonthug 2y ago
        Fang companies have colluded together before to surpress the labor market, litigation about this goes back to 2010 or so. Since that’s always an option.. yeah clearly keeping talent in high col places is a part of the cudgel that employers want to use against employees. It’s similar to healthcare being connected to employment really. If the labor market was actually free from ultimately coercive tactics like this then the world would look very different.
  - blitzar 2y ago
    It's not the details of the request, it is the request itself. Do this, or else.
jarsin 2y ago
This was at Google?
financetechbro 2y ago
This is disgusting. I’m sorry about that
thayne 2y ago
It's quite likely RTO was an initial attempt to reduce headcount by encouraging people to quit, without having to pay severance.
- WheatMillington 2y ago
  Do Americans companies HAVE to pay severance? Don't American companies do layoffs all the time?
  - jarsin 2y ago
    No severance is not apart of the law. You can be laid off and fired at anytime for any reason without severance. My manager laughed in my face when I asked if there was severance when being laid off in GFC. Some states even have laws that employers don't have to pay accrued vacation time. For example Nevada says employers with under 50 employees don't have to pay accrued vacation.
    - thayne 2y ago
      As mentioned in another comment there is the WARN act[1] at the federal level. And many states have additional regulations. In practice, employers would often prefer the people laid off just stop working immediately than continuing coming to work knowing they are losing their jobs soon. And I think employers can offer employees a severance agreement where the employee waives their right to the 90 day notice in exchange for some other compensation, such as a lump sum payment. However, there are exceptions. In particular if the company is small enough, or the layoff is below a certain percentage of employees, it doesn't take effect. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraining_Notification_Act_of_1988 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retrai...
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - __turbobrew__ 2y ago
    The WARN act dictates that you need to provide 60 days notice for certain mass layoffs. Typically this means you are laid off, but remain on payroll for 60 days.
h14h 2y ago
I got laid off at the start of my first day back in the new office. Had to leave my morning standup early to receive the news. Fortunately I didn't have to uproot my life or move cities, but it was a wakeup call as to the true nature of at will employment. You can't take anything for granted.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > You can't take anything for granted A plan B is always a good thing to have. I knew a middle class engineer a few years ago who spent every dime of his salary on installment payments for this and that. The company then had to cut back, and he went into a furious panic. It was a trap he set for himself, although he blamed the company. Even if the government guarantees you lifetime employment, it isn't a guarantee.
pyrale 2y ago
Maybe they hoped that you’d leave because of RTO, sparing them the financial cost associated with the layoff.
DanielHB 2y ago
Of course the layoffs were planned during the RTO, that way they have to fire less people because a lot of them will leave on their own!

toomuchtodo 2y ago

It’s happening because employers are desperate to get their power back while workers have no rights. It also makes it harder to leave an org, as orgs are also desperate to hold on to and develop existing talent due to forward looking working age population demographics. This is a desperate immune response. (also why employers are trying to staff up offices offshore in LATAM and India) Edit: @tbrownaw all of the responses to your inquiry are accurate.

tbrownaw 2y ago
> It’s happening because employers are desperate to get their power back while workers have no rights. What does this mean in concrete terms? What useful power do they gain based on physical presence, and what rights are currently absent but coming (back?) soon?
- scott_w 2y ago
  > Being forced to RTO across the country, then immediately laid off after I uprooted my life to do so Definitely power there if you know your staff have just uprooted their lives and now depend on you for their immediate term existence…
- PantaloonFlames 2y ago
  The power in the market for labor. If remote labor is the norm, then every tech company has to compete with every other, across all geographies. If local labor is required, the employers can manage or restrict their competitive environment. There are fewer options for the employee. The bulk layoffs of the past couple of years have a similar effect - gaining power. It makes every employee a little more conscious that their employment is provisional and conditional. But I think RTO goes beyond just market power gains. There are many workers who are conscientious, attentive, and dedicated. For each one of those there are plenty who are just punching their time card. I’m no expert but it seems to me that RTO gives the employer and mid-level managers better visibility into all of that dynamic. But RTO fights against the reality that employers have constructed distributed teams, with people working from all over the globe on the same project. If that’s the case, what is the difference whether I work from my home office, or a hotel desk space in a big building alongside people I don’t know.?
  - brookst 2y ago
    > If remote labor is the norm, then every tech company has to compete with every other, across all geographies. If local labor is required, the employers can manage or restrict their competitive environment. Doesn’t that seem backwards? A company that supports remote work has a worldwide talent pool.l, including lower cost geographies. A company that insists on RTO can only hire locally, so has less talent available and can’t arbitrage labor costs. I think RTO makes no sense, but I don’t see how it gives employers more power.
    - jackcosgrove 2y ago
      I have thought about this too. * Remote workers aren't actually a worldwide labor force because of time zones, so the competition on the labor side is less than in theory. * Remote work diminished the difference in liquidity between labor and capital markets. Capital is by nature more liquid than labor, and being more liquid gives you an advantage. As you say, the competitive pressures exist in both markets, and maybe this is a wash in terms of power. * Remote workers can pay off mortgages faster, leading to more early retirements. I still think the primary reason is a desire to manage according to the old style, which is a different argument than the GP.
    - alpha_squared 2y ago
      > Doesn’t that seem backwards? A company that supports remote work has a worldwide talent pool.l, including lower cost geographies. Humans are not just replaceable cogs. When you hire someone, there are several things built into the assumption of that work that we take for granted. For example, federal holidays or work culture. The US is notorious for accepting overwork as the norm (people even brag about working 60-hour weeks) where that's just not acceptable in other parts of the world. That's obviously not true everywhere (e.g. 9-9-6 in China), but is true in enough places that it's not trivial to just swap in person A from country X with person B in country Y. That's not even touching on labor laws, language barriers (e.g. understanding office lingo like "circle back"), or value structure. The latter is huge where Americans care a lot about their jobs and careers and most parts of the world don't have the concept of a career.
    - 2y ago
- lukevp 2y ago
  Not OP, but RTO forces geographic centralization and reduces mobility of their employees. If you can work remotely then you have a much larger pool. And I think that opening the door to remote work made employees realize that there was some power and some negotiation to be had on working conditions (basically our generation’s version of the 40 hr work week in response to the Industrial Revolution)
  - pm90 2y ago
    This is an underrated comment. I like the framing of Remote as Millenial’s 40hr workweek. In the face of declining worker conditions we made the best of a crisis (pandemic) and showed that working remotely was viable for most jobs. But no, the ruling class could not tolerate those gains. My prediction is that as soon as interest rates fall, employers will be reintroducing “flexibility” to lure workers and attract talent. And at that point it might become more established.
- Jordan-117 2y ago
  Office work requires living within commute distance of the office, which is much more expensive and keeps the employee tethered to their job. Remote workers are less threatened by layoffs because they can choose to live in a lower COL area and have their pick of other remote-friendly jobs rather than being limited to other companies in their metro or having to uproot their lives to move somewhere else. This is on top of the perceived benefits employers have surveiling and micromanaging office work. As for workers having fewer protections rn, gestures in the general direction of DC.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Office work requires living within commute distance of the office, which is much more expensive and keeps the employee tethered to their job. Remote workers are less threatened by layoffs because they can choose to live in a lower COL area and have their pick of other remote-friendly jobs rather than being limited to other companies in their metro or having to uproot their lives to move somewhere else. This doesn't make any sense. Remote jobs are... remote. Moving to mountain view or whatever doesn't make you "limited to other companies in their metro". You can still find remote jobs, but now you have the additional option of in-person jobs in the bay area.
    - i_am_proteus 2y ago
      If you move to Mountain View, you need to be able to afford to live in Mountain View. That takes a lot of remote jobs off the table, or substantially diminishes their prospects. If you live in Omaha and work remotely, far more remote jobs are available.
    - photonthug 2y ago
      Fang companies have colluded together before to surpress the labor market, litigation about this goes back to 2010 or so. Since that’s always an option.. yeah clearly keeping talent in high col places is a part of the cudgel that employers want to use against employees. It’s similar to healthcare being connected to employment really. If the labor market was actually free from ultimately coercive tactics like this then the world would look very different.
- blitzar 2y ago
  It's not the details of the request, it is the request itself. Do this, or else.

jarsin 2y ago

This was at Google?

financetechbro 2y ago

This is disgusting. I’m sorry about that

thayne 2y ago

It's quite likely RTO was an initial attempt to reduce headcount by encouraging people to quit, without having to pay severance.

WheatMillington 2y ago
Do Americans companies HAVE to pay severance? Don't American companies do layoffs all the time?
- jarsin 2y ago
  No severance is not apart of the law. You can be laid off and fired at anytime for any reason without severance. My manager laughed in my face when I asked if there was severance when being laid off in GFC. Some states even have laws that employers don't have to pay accrued vacation time. For example Nevada says employers with under 50 employees don't have to pay accrued vacation.
  - thayne 2y ago
    As mentioned in another comment there is the WARN act[1] at the federal level. And many states have additional regulations. In practice, employers would often prefer the people laid off just stop working immediately than continuing coming to work knowing they are losing their jobs soon. And I think employers can offer employees a severance agreement where the employee waives their right to the 90 day notice in exchange for some other compensation, such as a lump sum payment. However, there are exceptions. In particular if the company is small enough, or the layoff is below a certain percentage of employees, it doesn't take effect. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraining_Notification_Act_of_1988 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retrai...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- __turbobrew__ 2y ago
  The WARN act dictates that you need to provide 60 days notice for certain mass layoffs. Typically this means you are laid off, but remain on payroll for 60 days.

h14h 2y ago

I got laid off at the start of my first day back in the new office. Had to leave my morning standup early to receive the news. Fortunately I didn't have to uproot my life or move cities, but it was a wakeup call as to the true nature of at will employment. You can't take anything for granted.

WalterBright 2y ago
> You can't take anything for granted A plan B is always a good thing to have. I knew a middle class engineer a few years ago who spent every dime of his salary on installment payments for this and that. The company then had to cut back, and he went into a furious panic. It was a trap he set for himself, although he blamed the company. Even if the government guarantees you lifetime employment, it isn't a guarantee.

pyrale 2y ago

Maybe they hoped that you’d leave because of RTO, sparing them the financial cost associated with the layoff.

DanielHB 2y ago

Of course the layoffs were planned during the RTO, that way they have to fire less people because a lot of them will leave on their own!