Regarding return to office policy, I hear many speculations and reasons hypothesized. Mostly by employees who don’t really know and who had no choice in it.
I would like to know is if there are any lemmings out there who have been involved in these talks.
What was discussed?
How is something like this coordinated amongst others businesses even rivals.
What are the high level factors that have gone into the decision?
Bonus points: is it even possible for employees to prevent or reverse these policies at this point?
Depends on what you mean by ‘screwed’. If they hired you with certain expectations, like in writing job is ‘remote’, then you can refuse.
If they fire you as a result, yes, you are ‘screwed’ in the case of you’ve lost your job,
But you then sue for wrongful dismissal, in which case you have some recourse.
But if you live in a country/state that doesn’t allow you to do that, and offers no employee protections,
You were screwed from the beginning by accepting work in such a place to begin with.
Not in the US. “Remote worker” is not a protected class.
Yes, definitely the fault of every worker in the US for accepting work … checks notes … in the US.
You can still sue if you find a lawyer who is willing to do it.
Pennsylvania is an “At Will” state, so in theory my wife could have fired any employee just because she felt like it. However, the steps laid out by our lawyer for firing someone were quite extensive.
We needed to have extensive documentation of failures and performance issues on file before we could consider it.
That’s also why my employer has such an extensive coaching and documentation process for poorly performing employees. The policy documents describe it as a way to ensure all employees have the opportunity and support they need to improve, but the real reason is definitely to protect against lawsuits.
Of course, if anyone in the US is thinking of moving to another state, this might be useful:
https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/economic-justice/workers-rights/best-states-to-work/
I was going to suggest that you’d want to cross-reference other details as well, such as if the state allows doctors to refuse to treat you because they think their magic sky-daddy doesn’t want them to.
It doesn’t need to be a ‘protected class’.
If you were hired as an accountant, and job description explains what the job entails.
The boss can’t tell you to go out front and mow the grass, and fire you if you refuse.
It’s not in your job description.
Same with remote work. If the job description said 100% remote work.
It would be the same as hiring someone in one city, and then demanding they move to another city, and firing you if you refuse.
Sure, they can let you go, but they’d be on the hook for compensation. (in most civilized places anyway)
[In the US,] Yes it does.
Yes they can.
Not compensation, but unemployment incsurance claims. If you’re let go “without cause,” you get to claim unemployment, and the business that let you go has to pay some portion of that. Unemployment insurance barely pays anything, though, so that’s not going to be a very high amount for the business.
I’ve noticed a lot of job offers say like “Other duties as required”
You are not going to outsmart the corporate lawyers.
The rich have class solidarity.
Wrongful termination happens when your employer fires you for an illegal reason. Learn what qualifies as wrongful discharge and the actions you can take.
The bar for tort cases in the US is at an all time low but it’s very unlikely you’d be successful suing for wrongful termination over RTO.