this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
1055 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

59589 readers
2962 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You don’t have to fund severance if people leave on their own.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And returning to the office probably doesn't count as an unreasonable change to the agreement, so you probably won't win if you sue, and the unemployment office probably won't help.

So yeah, sucks all around.

[–] BalooWasWahoo@links.hackliberty.org 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It definitely counts as an unreasonable change. If you quietly accept it, or quit due to it, you won't get the help. If you set things up in your favor by replying to the mandate with language along the lines of 'such a significant change to working conditions requires a renegotiation of my contract' then you're placing yourself in a good position to say that you were constructively dismissed, not that you quit.

A change from working wherever you are (which could be hours away if you were full remote) to the office is just as significant as being moved from one metropolis to another.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you were hired as remote you have a pretty strong case for constructive dismissal.

I think you're going to have an uphill battle if you were hired to work in a building and they allowed work from home due to a pandemic. I don't think being slow getting back to the office is going to win you your case.

[–] nexas_XIII@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I feel like being remote for 4 years is no longer about the pandemic. It's become a new standard and by showing financial harm by coming into the office I feel you might have a better case. Example being car insurance. My insurance went down as my car is now a "personal vehicle" vs a "commuter car"

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The pandemic was very clearly the initiator.

Being conservative about forcing people back (because most have wanted people back long before now) doesn't change anything legally. You were hired for an in person job, they were forced to have you work from home by actual government orders, and they moved slowly on forcing you back because it was an extended period of time where there was an actual meaningful health risk to a big enough portion of employees.