3 ms·

> Microsoft's new approach is the latest sign of the company increasing performance pressure on employees. It has fired thousands of employees deemed low perfor

by neilv 1y ago

> Microsoft's new approach is the latest sign of the company increasing performance pressure on employees. It has fired thousands of employees deemed low performers this year and introduced a new performance improvement plan meant to exit low performers more quickly. Claims who? These also sound like typical sketchy headcount reduction tactics. Also, it's throwing employees under the bus, because the company is tarring them as low performers, at the same time as the company dumps them onto a hostile job market. Those employees should talk to lawyers. > > Importantly, this update is not about reducing headcount. MS had to mention that in the memo, because that's what everyone reading it was thinking?

sharts 1y ago
While sketchy and total crap move on MS. What recourse do employees really have? MS likely consulted with their army of lawyers before pulling this. Actions might be crappy but not illegal. Not a lawyer but employers are usually allowed to dictate the terms of the employment agreements and requiring someone to go into an office to work can be one of them. Even changing from permanent remote to onsite at a later time seems like another relatively protected decision. Unless someone somewhere higher up is on the record saying something like “Oh yeah let’s make them come into the office to actually make it really crappy for them so they leave on their own” I doubt any reasonably reliable legal case can be made.
- neilv 1y ago
  To non-lawyer me, this sounds like something for which lawyers have a term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal If I've heard of this angle, I assume that lawyers know many angles that may apply.
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    And? As long as it isn’t discriminatory, since 49 of the 50 states are at will employment, you can be let go at anytime for any reason or no reason. It might come into play with unemployment insurance but the weekly amount is so low it’s laughable.
    - neilv 1y ago
      For better or worse, neither of us is a lawyer, but I'm comfortable in saying that the affected people should: Talk. To. A. Lawyer. Isn't that better than us random Internet people telling them -- although we think something shitty is going on -- they definitely don't have a case, and they definitely shouldn't talk to a lawyer? (For all we know, an actual lawyer might tell them that they actually do have a case.)
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        It really doesn’t take a lawyer to know what “at will employment” means. A case for what unless it’s discriminatory. Your employer doesn’t have to justify letting you go - at all. Even looking at your citation, it shows that constructive dismissal is only actionable if you can show that they made working conditions harder and they were targeting you under a law meant to protect you against discrimination Companies have been giving employees an ultimatum between “relocate or quit” forever.
        neilv 1y ago
        Also, in combination with possible constructive dismissal, the company is possibly defaming the employees in a way that predictably adversely affects their ability to gain new employment. And there may be other potential problems that aren't apparent to me, since I'm not a lawyer. Talking to a lawyer about this is low-effort, low-risk. You get a lawyer's name from friend/family or another kind of lawyer you know, or you call the local bar association referral service (or, if poor, maybe go first to a law school free clinic near you, to see what resources they can point you at). Then you get a free initial consultation with an actual lawyer, who can tell you whether they think you might have a case. That's all I have to say on this topic. (Side Note: You might have been discussing this from a standpoint of Someone Is Wrong On The Internet, and you want to help more people understand At-Will, for example. I can understand that. But I was discussing this from a standpoint of Don't Screw Over Vulnerable People By Discouraging Them From Talking To A Lawyer When I Think They Should.)
        1y ago
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    Constructive Dismissal has been brought up in every RTO thread for years, but I've never heard of a case where it worked. The key to constructive dismissal is that a reasonable person would have to find the new conditions intolerable and it has to constitute some form of discrimination (e.g. not a change in company policy, but a targeted attack that discriminates against you). So given that most people commute to work, you couldn't argue that it was intolerable to be asked to commute to work. If you wake up one day to an e-mail from your employer that you, and you alone, need to relocate to their new office in a small town in Alaska for no good reason, you'd have a good case for constructive dismissal. However if the company changes their policy and applies it equally to everyone requiring employees within 50 miles of an office come in (the case with this RTO move) then you don't have a valid case for a constructive dismissal lawsuit.
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      >but I've never heard of a case where it worked. that's what the severace packages are for. There's not a lot of people being dumped that wouldn't take 3-6 months of pay in advance in exchange for not being able to engage in a length lawsuit with a trillion dollar corporation.
      - Aurornis 1y ago
        You usually don't get a severance package if you resign or quit due to RTO unless the company goes out of their way to offer one.
    - th0ma5 1y ago
      Any reasonable person should see the air quality in all American offices as a hostile environment full stop.
Aurornis 1y ago
I don't know. When a company uses RTO to reduce headcount they usually include all employees, with the expectation that those who live far away from the office will resign instead of relocate. If I'm reading this right, it only applies to people who already live within 50 miles of the office. Remote-remote employees are exempt.
- dymk 1y ago
  How many employees do you think msft has that don’t live within that 50 mile radius? I’d bet it’s an incredibly small percentage. They chose 50 miles because it’s big enough to cover almost everyone. I’m within that but my commute is two hours one direction.
  - ajryan 1y ago
    Redmond only
    - dymk 1y ago
      The 50 mile radius touches Olympia, and that's a conservative centering on building 92. It's basically everybody that they hire in western Washington.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    If it is really two hours by a reasonable route then you likely have a case that the commute is unreasonable and you would not have taken the job without them paying moving expenses if it offered that way. Therefore they need to offer moving expenses. I'd ask the boss first as they may have contacts in hr that can handle this. If they won't offer moving expenses odds are you can convince an unemployment judge this is an unreasonable change in working conditions and so you can collect unemployment. (A lawyer can give more detail)
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      $1019 a week - the maximum in Washington - is not nothing. But it’s not life changing.
johnnyanmac 1y ago
>MS had to mention that in the memo, because that's what everyone reading it was thinking? It's not reducing headcount if they hire just as many people overseas.
Consultant32452 1y ago
At my shop employees had to RTO but us consultants are still remote. I suspect this is exactly what it looks like.

by neilv 1y ago

sharts 1y ago

While sketchy and total crap move on MS. What recourse do employees really have? MS likely consulted with their army of lawyers before pulling this. Actions might be crappy but not illegal. Not a lawyer but employers are usually allowed to dictate the terms of the employment agreements and requiring someone to go into an office to work can be one of them. Even changing from permanent remote to onsite at a later time seems like another relatively protected decision. Unless someone somewhere higher up is on the record saying something like “Oh yeah let’s make them come into the office to actually make it really crappy for them so they leave on their own” I doubt any reasonably reliable legal case can be made.

neilv 1y ago
To non-lawyer me, this sounds like something for which lawyers have a term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal If I've heard of this angle, I assume that lawyers know many angles that may apply.
- scarface_74 1y ago
  And? As long as it isn’t discriminatory, since 49 of the 50 states are at will employment, you can be let go at anytime for any reason or no reason. It might come into play with unemployment insurance but the weekly amount is so low it’s laughable.
  - neilv 1y ago
    For better or worse, neither of us is a lawyer, but I'm comfortable in saying that the affected people should: Talk. To. A. Lawyer. Isn't that better than us random Internet people telling them -- although we think something shitty is going on -- they definitely don't have a case, and they definitely shouldn't talk to a lawyer? (For all we know, an actual lawyer might tell them that they actually do have a case.)
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      It really doesn’t take a lawyer to know what “at will employment” means. A case for what unless it’s discriminatory. Your employer doesn’t have to justify letting you go - at all. Even looking at your citation, it shows that constructive dismissal is only actionable if you can show that they made working conditions harder and they were targeting you under a law meant to protect you against discrimination Companies have been giving employees an ultimatum between “relocate or quit” forever.
      - neilv 1y ago
        Also, in combination with possible constructive dismissal, the company is possibly defaming the employees in a way that predictably adversely affects their ability to gain new employment. And there may be other potential problems that aren't apparent to me, since I'm not a lawyer. Talking to a lawyer about this is low-effort, low-risk. You get a lawyer's name from friend/family or another kind of lawyer you know, or you call the local bar association referral service (or, if poor, maybe go first to a law school free clinic near you, to see what resources they can point you at). Then you get a free initial consultation with an actual lawyer, who can tell you whether they think you might have a case. That's all I have to say on this topic. (Side Note: You might have been discussing this from a standpoint of Someone Is Wrong On The Internet, and you want to help more people understand At-Will, for example. I can understand that. But I was discussing this from a standpoint of Don't Screw Over Vulnerable People By Discouraging Them From Talking To A Lawyer When I Think They Should.)
        1y ago
- Aurornis 1y ago
  Constructive Dismissal has been brought up in every RTO thread for years, but I've never heard of a case where it worked. The key to constructive dismissal is that a reasonable person would have to find the new conditions intolerable and it has to constitute some form of discrimination (e.g. not a change in company policy, but a targeted attack that discriminates against you). So given that most people commute to work, you couldn't argue that it was intolerable to be asked to commute to work. If you wake up one day to an e-mail from your employer that you, and you alone, need to relocate to their new office in a small town in Alaska for no good reason, you'd have a good case for constructive dismissal. However if the company changes their policy and applies it equally to everyone requiring employees within 50 miles of an office come in (the case with this RTO move) then you don't have a valid case for a constructive dismissal lawsuit.
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    >but I've never heard of a case where it worked. that's what the severace packages are for. There's not a lot of people being dumped that wouldn't take 3-6 months of pay in advance in exchange for not being able to engage in a length lawsuit with a trillion dollar corporation.
    - Aurornis 1y ago
      You usually don't get a severance package if you resign or quit due to RTO unless the company goes out of their way to offer one.
  - th0ma5 1y ago
    Any reasonable person should see the air quality in all American offices as a hostile environment full stop.

Aurornis 1y ago

I don't know. When a company uses RTO to reduce headcount they usually include all employees, with the expectation that those who live far away from the office will resign instead of relocate. If I'm reading this right, it only applies to people who already live within 50 miles of the office. Remote-remote employees are exempt.

dymk 1y ago
How many employees do you think msft has that don’t live within that 50 mile radius? I’d bet it’s an incredibly small percentage. They chose 50 miles because it’s big enough to cover almost everyone. I’m within that but my commute is two hours one direction.
- ajryan 1y ago
  Redmond only
  - dymk 1y ago
    The 50 mile radius touches Olympia, and that's a conservative centering on building 92. It's basically everybody that they hire in western Washington.
- bluGill 1y ago
  If it is really two hours by a reasonable route then you likely have a case that the commute is unreasonable and you would not have taken the job without them paying moving expenses if it offered that way. Therefore they need to offer moving expenses. I'd ask the boss first as they may have contacts in hr that can handle this. If they won't offer moving expenses odds are you can convince an unemployment judge this is an unreasonable change in working conditions and so you can collect unemployment. (A lawyer can give more detail)
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    $1019 a week - the maximum in Washington - is not nothing. But it’s not life changing.

johnnyanmac 1y ago

>MS had to mention that in the memo, because that's what everyone reading it was thinking? It's not reducing headcount if they hire just as many people overseas.

Consultant32452 1y ago

At my shop employees had to RTO but us consultants are still remote. I suspect this is exactly what it looks like.