"In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is, in effect, a termination. For example, when an employer places extraordinary and unreasonable work demands on an employee to obtain their resignation, this can constitute a constructive dismissal. "
That matters when employees have contracts promising termination only with cause. But these employees are likely all at-will; they can be fired for having the wrong hair cut.
No, I live in an at-will state, you can absolutely file for constructive dismissal. And SHOULD. If you can do your job remotely, have been doing your job remotely, and the company wants to end that? Then the company absolutely needs to be challenged and burdened with showing proof as to why returning to the office is necessary when it does create an unreasonable burden on the employee.
For anyone who says this isn't an unreasonable burden, what if you live in a different state? Or in a lower cost-of-living? Or have a home/family life built around a position working remotely that you have been functioning in perfectly fine for three, four, five plus years?
In Physical Security if your position requires body armor, the company is legally admitting it's a dangerous life-threatening position & denying a request for body armor is a legal attestation that the job should not be considered dangerous in the course of day to day work.
Much the same way, the company is now admitting that onsite work for the position is somehow more necessary then working remotely. Challenge these companies.
Constructive dismissals aren’t necessarily illegal, they’re just not resignations. A “resignation” that is actually a constructive dismissal would usually qualify that employee for any legal benefits they’d receive as a fired employee, like unemployment.
Constructive dismissal isn't about whether it's legal or not to do it. It is, however, relevant to things like unemployment benefits—my wife, for instance, had her job changed on her just as the lockdowns were beginning, to something she had already made it very clear she was adamantly unwilling to do (and this was a complete change in title, responsibilities, department, the whole works), and after she had been instrumental in some reports that were pretty critical of the administration and (indirectly) supportive of unionization. She quit, and had no trouble (at least, no more than usual) getting the state to agree she deserved unemployment.
I'm a remote worker who would quit before returning to the office. But even so I can't interpret a requirement to be non-remote as "a hostile work environment", "extraordinary", or "unreasonable". But yes, it does look more like a termination than a voluntary resignation.
> But even so I can't interpret a requirement to be non-remote as "a hostile work environment", "extraordinary", or "unreasonable". But yes, it does look more like a termination than a voluntary resignation.
I think a unilateral change to the employment contract that substantially changes the character of the work (from fully remote to in-person) could fairly easily be described as 'unreasonable', just as if your employer decided to cut your salary in half.
The fate of any potential case would probably come down to the reasonable expectations of the parties. If there was a common understanding that remote work was permanent, then a unilateral change would be unreasonable; if the remote work was time-limited, probationary, or a trial, then the change might be reasonable even if undesired.
The actual threashold is “a meaningful change in your work requirements” and there is, I believe, plenty of case law to establish that this includes a significant change to your worksite location.
If you live 5 min from your office, maybe you can’t use this excuse. But if you are committing 45+ min each way, or have since moved out of state…
So to give some insight, I've been working as a virtual employee for 6 years. I've never been to an actual office location and don't live near one. Every offer/contact I've had has been for virtual location. In my employee portal it's always listed virtual as my location.
With that said, we're now being forced to relocate to wherever our senior leadership (directors etc), people we've never met or spoken to, work out of. For example, if your leadership works out of Seattle, that's where you need to be.
Only options are relocate or voluntarily resign. No severance. And it appears no unemployment options.
I have no words to be honest and would genuinely appreciate advice.
If they did this to a single employee without good reason, that employee might have a case.
If they institute a company-wide policy and apply it by default to everyone, an individual could not argue that the company constructively dismissed them.
This is the Amazon I know! This is the Amazon I worked for 4 years. Every time I wonder if things changed one of these stories pops up. And reinforces my resolve to never work for this piece-of-** company unless I cannot make my next mortgage payment.
I have never worked there, but this also squares with my outsider's impression of it. Thanks for confirming, though -- and I hope your mortgage payments never ever force you into that situation. Good luck!
Are they also, going to give all their commuting employees electric cars, to align with their “climate pledge”? Doubt it, but I’m sure their executives will still lecture the rest of us about climate change.
This happened in the Bay Area, too. Prior to everyone adopting "RTO" (return to office) policies, my commute to the office regardless of the day was about 20 minutes (leaving from SF). After, on Tuesdays through Thursdays, it can easily be 30-40 minutes. And getting back home? Horrible. Before RTO I could leave the office at 4 or 5 and be back in my nice apartment within a half hour. Now it takes 10 fuckin minutes just to get off on Sixth Street after a 20-30 minute drive. And if there's a wreck on the 80 going to the east bay forget it--it's another 10-20 minutes just to get through the last 2 blocks of traffic.
Oh god yes. Also, our transit agency has a driver shortage so there are less buses in the road, and their schedules are erratic, making people rely on cars more often. It is even worse than before the pandemic at this point.
Can you imagine being asked to move to a different city, go into the office, only to use Chime all day? The only people who will agree are the ones who sadly have no alternative.
> The only people who will agree are the ones who sadly have no alternative.
Many people will continue to choose to work at Amazon and specifically because they want to be around other colleagues a few days in the week. It is pretty presumptive and insulting to say to someone like that that they're in a "sad" position and they are "victims".
rule #2 of hacker news, never express an opinion different from the hive mind.
I don't agree with the other commenters, that you're suffering from Stockholm. So I'm sorry your opinion is getting unfairly trashed the way it is.
But like you're not wrong to enjoy working in the office, they're not wrong for wanting to work at home. And it's pretty clear Amazon is being abusive with their policies
So not everyone is a victim sure, some of them are, and I think the expectation is that everyone will help stand up against the bully, even when the bully isn't targeting you.
The thing is, plenty of people were hired with the expectation that they would stay remote. Sure, some of those people will be happy to go into the office. Others will most certainly not be happy about the "choice" of whether to move their family to another state and completely change their work routine.
Exhibit 1. A 'Hacker News' post by a user exhibiting the tell-tale emotionally-charged defense of their abuser, a classic hallmark of Stockholm Syndrome.
Yes. Let’s do this thing that will likely lower pay and ensure shitty engineers keep jobs they can’t do because of a horribly short sighted view that RTO is not equitable.
The issues with Unions is there appears to be no way for a company to hire non union workers. Once this happens you are basically the mob. And hold the company and other employees hostage to mob rule. Which is almost always not driven by logic.
There are enough remote jobs.
The idea that you want a specific job at a specific place to allow you to work remotely is insane. Nobody owes you shit. Either you like the terms and work there or you don’t and find another job.
What exactly is insane about wanting a software engineering job to allow you to work remotely? Obviously it’s entirely possible to do remotely, I’m curious what I’m missing that makes this insane?
A CBA can cover things other than wages. Many states are also right to work, so nobody has to join the union in those states.
How long do you think Amazon will last as a company if their engineering department went on strike? Probably about 15 minutes. Amazon workers could really get a fair slice of the pie of they organized.
This was already happening, I was laid off from AWS back in May with the other 9,000 employees and the vast majority of people laid off were the fully-remote employees far enough from an office to have a valid reason to stay remote. This is just AWS getting more bold about it
Readit News
For anyone who says this isn't an unreasonable burden, what if you live in a different state? Or in a lower cost-of-living? Or have a home/family life built around a position working remotely that you have been functioning in perfectly fine for three, four, five plus years?
In Physical Security if your position requires body armor, the company is legally admitting it's a dangerous life-threatening position & denying a request for body armor is a legal attestation that the job should not be considered dangerous in the course of day to day work.
Much the same way, the company is now admitting that onsite work for the position is somehow more necessary then working remotely. Challenge these companies.
Deleted Comment
I think a unilateral change to the employment contract that substantially changes the character of the work (from fully remote to in-person) could fairly easily be described as 'unreasonable', just as if your employer decided to cut your salary in half.
The fate of any potential case would probably come down to the reasonable expectations of the parties. If there was a common understanding that remote work was permanent, then a unilateral change would be unreasonable; if the remote work was time-limited, probationary, or a trial, then the change might be reasonable even if undesired.
If you live 5 min from your office, maybe you can’t use this excuse. But if you are committing 45+ min each way, or have since moved out of state…
If they institute a company-wide policy and apply it by default to everyone, an individual could not argue that the company constructively dismissed them.
(Learned this second hand, please correct me if wrong)
I read this as "when we're in prison" for some reason and couldn't believe someone would seriously say that.
It’s so hilariously mismanaged..the execs are just useful idiots for the globalist agenda at this point
What does "globalist agenda" mean?
Many people will continue to choose to work at Amazon and specifically because they want to be around other colleagues a few days in the week. It is pretty presumptive and insulting to say to someone like that that they're in a "sad" position and they are "victims".
I don't agree with the other commenters, that you're suffering from Stockholm. So I'm sorry your opinion is getting unfairly trashed the way it is.
But like you're not wrong to enjoy working in the office, they're not wrong for wanting to work at home. And it's pretty clear Amazon is being abusive with their policies
So not everyone is a victim sure, some of them are, and I think the expectation is that everyone will help stand up against the bully, even when the bully isn't targeting you.
The issues with Unions is there appears to be no way for a company to hire non union workers. Once this happens you are basically the mob. And hold the company and other employees hostage to mob rule. Which is almost always not driven by logic.
There are enough remote jobs.
The idea that you want a specific job at a specific place to allow you to work remotely is insane. Nobody owes you shit. Either you like the terms and work there or you don’t and find another job.
How long do you think Amazon will last as a company if their engineering department went on strike? Probably about 15 minutes. Amazon workers could really get a fair slice of the pie of they organized.