5 ms·

Amazon Tells Employees to Relocate or Resign

45 points by Michelangelo11 1y ago

pfdietz 1y ago
Move to the locations where the non-compete laws are more favorable to Amazon.
- kcplate 1y ago
  A non-compete wouldn’t stop me unless it specifically named the competitors, what they wanted to protect, and why. Non-competes have such a high reasonableness standard that they are not even worth trying to enforce unless you are specifically trying to fuck over your former company.
0xjunhao 1y ago
What's the difference between resign and layoff :)
- felixnm 1y ago
  Resign is employee initiated, being laid off, or layoff, is company initiated. Not sure about other states, but in Illinois if you resign, most likely you won't qualify for unemployment benefits. If you're laid off (as I've been multiple times), you can qualify for unemployment benefits. I'm basing this on my experience, but you should consult an attorney before signing anything if you're being fired/laid off/let go, etc.
  - yladiz 1y ago
    In Germany, it’s similar: you’re entitled to unemployment benefits regardless (if you’ve been an employee of a company that pays for your salary and taxes), but if you quit you don’t get benefits for 3 months as a “penalty”, so people ask to get fired by their employer and in some cases the employer obliges.
  - frollogaston 1y ago
    That and severance pay if the company does it. From the article: "if they chose [to resign], they would not receive severance pay."
fathomdeez 1y ago
Why do these companies keep trying to fire remote employees? Is it so hard to let them keep working from home? Is the company's real estate portfolio that important? You could probably even pay remote workers less (or give non-remote employees a "bonus" for coming in) and everyone would still be happy.
- bediger4000 1y ago
  My guess is that there's tax breaks on the line in most cases. That is, corporations got some tax breaks on the basis of so many humans in downtown (or whatever office). If they don't meet those obligations, they loose some overly generous subsidy.
- quectophoton 1y ago
  Look at it from the companies' point of view: - Human contact is more important than efficiency gains, hence mandating return-to-office. - At the same time, efficiency gains are more important than human contact, hence reducing human headcount in favor of increased AI use. If you read between the lines, you can see how those two points are related: humans find difficult to feel connected when their communication partner is just pixels on a screen, so that's why remote workers are being replaced with AI.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - yks 1y ago
    > Human contact is more important than efficiency gains, hence mandating return-to-office. First, citation needed. Second, in this day and age companies try whatever they can to ruin in-office employees' morale as well, which goes counter to the position that social quality of life is important for efficiency.
    - frollogaston 1y ago
      The endless Q&A between employees and bosses show that it's not about collaboration, and bosses aren't saying what it's really about. None of their answers make sense.
csense 1y ago
The following is not legal advice, it's just my opinion. DYOR, check with a lawyer, etc. "Do you want to relocate or resign?" is a false dichotomy. You can always just refuse to answer (possibly with soft words like ""I'm not sure" or "I haven't decided yet") -- keep doing your job, and wait until the company lets you go. I'm pretty sure, if a company moves its operations and your job no longer exists in the same location, you're entitled to unemployment benefits -- but not if you resign. The "Relocate or resign" phrasing seems to be trying to trick the affected employees into giving up their rights to unemployment benefits.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  Indeed, talk to an employment attorney to maximize your outcome. You gain nothing by resigning, it’s a ploy to absolve them of any separation cost or potential legal claims (constructive dismissal, refusal to provide ADA accommodations, etc).
- JJMcJ 1y ago
  Usually if the worksite moves more than some distance, usually +/- 50 miles, you can claim UI if you don't relocate.
  - delfinom 1y ago
    Yes but the employer must first fire you for refusing to relocate. Hence _dont resign_. Some companies try and cheat employees illegally by not only telling you one of two options but also tell you that no response is "voluntary resignation". The correct answer is speak to an employment lawyer, but it's usually as simple as you draft a letter that says "I do not accept the relocation and I AM NOT resigning".
- guywithahat 1y ago
  I'm also not a lawyer, but wouldn't getting fired for not showing up to work be for-cause, thus excluding you from unemployment benefits? My understanding (which isn't clarified in the article) is these employees weren't hired to be remove, they were hired at an office.
jasonthorsness 1y ago
At this point long commutes just seem a waste of time (and I know a number of people in the Seattle area who are forced into long commutes by Amazon only to do most remote meetings once they arrive). Sometimes I do think the ideal job would be a medium-sized company with an office within walking distance of everyone's home. When everyone in the office is aligned on the same thing it's really great to be in-person. I don't think this holds for a giant organization like Amazon.
- jauntywundrkind 1y ago
  The demands to relocate to the same office as your team should eliminate the "only to do most remote meetings" problem, but woof. I can't imagine demanding either jerking around your talent like this (forcing a big move) nor commuting 5 days a week. Just feels like a billionaire commitment to insuring a better world isn't possible.
throwaway-abdq 1y ago
Read up on "constructive dismissal" and talk with an employment lawyer.
UltraSane 1y ago
The US road system is a HUGE subsidy to companies by enabling employees to commute long distances. If companies bore the commute costs of worker commutes they would be MUCH more in favor of remote work.
- yks 1y ago
  It is obvious that the "suburb-to-downtown commute" lifestyle arrangement of America is not scalable, wasteful and a massive quality of life drain. Yet we're committing to it, why? Because the employers don't want to pay more in unemployment insurance and try to lay you off in some roundabout way? This is maddening.
  - frollogaston 1y ago
    It's not scalable, but it works ok if you don't try to scale it too much. Like don't cram several big tech companies' employees into one city.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      This is practically unavoidable because of how economies work. People want to live near jobs, and jobs want to be near people. So we get congregations of people (urbanism). It's not like these tech companies actually want to be in a high COL area paying out big fat salaries and paying exorbitant rent on their "campus" nobody cares for. But they want the talent, so they play ball.
guywithahat 1y ago
It's unclear from the article, but it seems like these people were hired near an office, (stupidly) moved away during covid, and now don't want to return. I have sympathy for them, but also it seems stupid to have thought remote work would last longer than covid.
- subarctic 1y ago
  Remember that period of time when they were writing articles about the "new normal"? Some people thought it would last a really long time. And fwiw it's been 5 years already
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- frollogaston 1y ago
  I did this, not at Amazon though. It's a calculated risk that's gone ok so far. If things change, new job or moving back are always options, but most likely not moving back.
refurb 1y ago
Do people remember during Covid how it was a “remote work revolution” and how it was going to cause sweeping changes to how people worked and how the economy functioned? Pepperidge Farms remembers… Not to toot my own horn or even make a pretty obvious prediction, my HN history has a comment from years ago predicting pretty much exactly what happened. Companies would do it as long as they needed to. Once they knew they had more people than positions it would be a slow squeeze and eventual “come in to the office or quit”.
0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
I thought Amazon had already cut WFH? Who is left that they are messaging?
- jauntywundrkind 1y ago
  You had to show up to an office. Now you have to show up to the same office as your team, is more or less what I'm getting.
jleyank 1y ago
As I’ve written in the past, companies that tolerate or even encourage WFH will have advantages when it comes to hiring (or retaining) older workers or workers with professional partners. If young bodies are what’s desired, yeah, do the cattle call. If skill and experience matters or there’s any talent availability issues they’re limiting their hiring pool.
- jleyack 1y ago
  I've read everything you've written and it's all solid gold (no homo).
  - exolymph 1y ago
    Good thing you specified, because I was assuming that you were gay.
DataDaemon 1y ago
What about CO2?
wavemode 1y ago
This is just another soft layoff. Amazon has been aggressively reducing headcount for several years now. First they did multiple rounds of actual layoffs, then they ended remote work, and now you have to relocate to live near a hub office. Mass resignations accomplish the same as layoffs but are much cheaper for Amazon due to not paying severance.

pfdietz 1y ago

Move to the locations where the non-compete laws are more favorable to Amazon.

kcplate 1y ago
A non-compete wouldn’t stop me unless it specifically named the competitors, what they wanted to protect, and why. Non-competes have such a high reasonableness standard that they are not even worth trying to enforce unless you are specifically trying to fuck over your former company.

0xjunhao 1y ago

What's the difference between resign and layoff :)

felixnm 1y ago
Resign is employee initiated, being laid off, or layoff, is company initiated. Not sure about other states, but in Illinois if you resign, most likely you won't qualify for unemployment benefits. If you're laid off (as I've been multiple times), you can qualify for unemployment benefits. I'm basing this on my experience, but you should consult an attorney before signing anything if you're being fired/laid off/let go, etc.
- yladiz 1y ago
  In Germany, it’s similar: you’re entitled to unemployment benefits regardless (if you’ve been an employee of a company that pays for your salary and taxes), but if you quit you don’t get benefits for 3 months as a “penalty”, so people ask to get fired by their employer and in some cases the employer obliges.
- frollogaston 1y ago
  That and severance pay if the company does it. From the article: "if they chose [to resign], they would not receive severance pay."

fathomdeez 1y ago

Why do these companies keep trying to fire remote employees? Is it so hard to let them keep working from home? Is the company's real estate portfolio that important? You could probably even pay remote workers less (or give non-remote employees a "bonus" for coming in) and everyone would still be happy.

bediger4000 1y ago
My guess is that there's tax breaks on the line in most cases. That is, corporations got some tax breaks on the basis of so many humans in downtown (or whatever office). If they don't meet those obligations, they loose some overly generous subsidy.
quectophoton 1y ago
Look at it from the companies' point of view: - Human contact is more important than efficiency gains, hence mandating return-to-office. - At the same time, efficiency gains are more important than human contact, hence reducing human headcount in favor of increased AI use. If you read between the lines, you can see how those two points are related: humans find difficult to feel connected when their communication partner is just pixels on a screen, so that's why remote workers are being replaced with AI.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- yks 1y ago
  > Human contact is more important than efficiency gains, hence mandating return-to-office. First, citation needed. Second, in this day and age companies try whatever they can to ruin in-office employees' morale as well, which goes counter to the position that social quality of life is important for efficiency.
  - frollogaston 1y ago
    The endless Q&A between employees and bosses show that it's not about collaboration, and bosses aren't saying what it's really about. None of their answers make sense.

csense 1y ago

The following is not legal advice, it's just my opinion. DYOR, check with a lawyer, etc. "Do you want to relocate or resign?" is a false dichotomy. You can always just refuse to answer (possibly with soft words like ""I'm not sure" or "I haven't decided yet") -- keep doing your job, and wait until the company lets you go. I'm pretty sure, if a company moves its operations and your job no longer exists in the same location, you're entitled to unemployment benefits -- but not if you resign. The "Relocate or resign" phrasing seems to be trying to trick the affected employees into giving up their rights to unemployment benefits.

toomuchtodo 1y ago
Indeed, talk to an employment attorney to maximize your outcome. You gain nothing by resigning, it’s a ploy to absolve them of any separation cost or potential legal claims (constructive dismissal, refusal to provide ADA accommodations, etc).
JJMcJ 1y ago
Usually if the worksite moves more than some distance, usually +/- 50 miles, you can claim UI if you don't relocate.
- delfinom 1y ago
  Yes but the employer must first fire you for refusing to relocate. Hence _dont resign_. Some companies try and cheat employees illegally by not only telling you one of two options but also tell you that no response is "voluntary resignation". The correct answer is speak to an employment lawyer, but it's usually as simple as you draft a letter that says "I do not accept the relocation and I AM NOT resigning".
guywithahat 1y ago
I'm also not a lawyer, but wouldn't getting fired for not showing up to work be for-cause, thus excluding you from unemployment benefits? My understanding (which isn't clarified in the article) is these employees weren't hired to be remove, they were hired at an office.

jasonthorsness 1y ago

At this point long commutes just seem a waste of time (and I know a number of people in the Seattle area who are forced into long commutes by Amazon only to do most remote meetings once they arrive). Sometimes I do think the ideal job would be a medium-sized company with an office within walking distance of everyone's home. When everyone in the office is aligned on the same thing it's really great to be in-person. I don't think this holds for a giant organization like Amazon.

jauntywundrkind 1y ago
The demands to relocate to the same office as your team should eliminate the "only to do most remote meetings" problem, but woof. I can't imagine demanding either jerking around your talent like this (forcing a big move) nor commuting 5 days a week. Just feels like a billionaire commitment to insuring a better world isn't possible.

throwaway-abdq 1y ago

Read up on "constructive dismissal" and talk with an employment lawyer.

UltraSane 1y ago

The US road system is a HUGE subsidy to companies by enabling employees to commute long distances. If companies bore the commute costs of worker commutes they would be MUCH more in favor of remote work.

yks 1y ago
It is obvious that the "suburb-to-downtown commute" lifestyle arrangement of America is not scalable, wasteful and a massive quality of life drain. Yet we're committing to it, why? Because the employers don't want to pay more in unemployment insurance and try to lay you off in some roundabout way? This is maddening.
- frollogaston 1y ago
  It's not scalable, but it works ok if you don't try to scale it too much. Like don't cram several big tech companies' employees into one city.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    This is practically unavoidable because of how economies work. People want to live near jobs, and jobs want to be near people. So we get congregations of people (urbanism). It's not like these tech companies actually want to be in a high COL area paying out big fat salaries and paying exorbitant rent on their "campus" nobody cares for. But they want the talent, so they play ball.

guywithahat 1y ago

It's unclear from the article, but it seems like these people were hired near an office, (stupidly) moved away during covid, and now don't want to return. I have sympathy for them, but also it seems stupid to have thought remote work would last longer than covid.

subarctic 1y ago
Remember that period of time when they were writing articles about the "new normal"? Some people thought it would last a really long time. And fwiw it's been 5 years already
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
frollogaston 1y ago
I did this, not at Amazon though. It's a calculated risk that's gone ok so far. If things change, new job or moving back are always options, but most likely not moving back.

refurb 1y ago

Do people remember during Covid how it was a “remote work revolution” and how it was going to cause sweeping changes to how people worked and how the economy functioned? Pepperidge Farms remembers… Not to toot my own horn or even make a pretty obvious prediction, my HN history has a comment from years ago predicting pretty much exactly what happened. Companies would do it as long as they needed to. Once they knew they had more people than positions it would be a slow squeeze and eventual “come in to the office or quit”.

0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago

I thought Amazon had already cut WFH? Who is left that they are messaging?

jauntywundrkind 1y ago
You had to show up to an office. Now you have to show up to the same office as your team, is more or less what I'm getting.

jleyank 1y ago

As I’ve written in the past, companies that tolerate or even encourage WFH will have advantages when it comes to hiring (or retaining) older workers or workers with professional partners. If young bodies are what’s desired, yeah, do the cattle call. If skill and experience matters or there’s any talent availability issues they’re limiting their hiring pool.

jleyack 1y ago
I've read everything you've written and it's all solid gold (no homo).
- exolymph 1y ago
  Good thing you specified, because I was assuming that you were gay.

DataDaemon 1y ago

What about CO2?

wavemode 1y ago

This is just another soft layoff. Amazon has been aggressively reducing headcount for several years now. First they did multiple rounds of actual layoffs, then they ended remote work, and now you have to relocate to live near a hub office. Mass resignations accomplish the same as layoffs but are much cheaper for Amazon due to not paying severance.