* **No Legal Recourse**: Most employees have no legal grounds to fight return-to-office (RTO) mandates unless there’s a protected reason under established law, such as a medical circumstance.
* **At-Will Employment**: The majority of US employees are considered “at-will,” meaning employers can terminate them at any time for any legal reason, and employees can quit at any time.
* **Employer’s Decision**: Employers have the authority to decide whether a job should be performed remotely, unless there is a contractual obligation stating otherwise.
* **Reasonable Accommodations**: Employees with medical reasons may have legal recourse if an employer rejects a doctor-prescribed “reasonable accommodation” for remote work under certain state laws and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
QuesoMeHungry on
And all of these companies are basically colluding by forcing RTO at the same time to stop people from leaving in droves to other companies offering full WFH to get the talent. I’m sure they all had a chat about it in Davos.
Youvebeeneloned on
I mean, the reason we are still talking about RTO right now, is that employees are fighting and winning against them.
Dell cant even get its people back into the office with threats against promotions. Others are dealing with the same issues, the good employees are leaving to companies that are hybrid/virtual, the bad employees are remaining causing projects to slid, and timelines to get blown up.
There is a reason multiple studies have concluded you hurt your company by forcing RTO in the longrun, vs the little financial hit you take on leases.
NebulousNitrate on
I’m in the industry and think I have it absolutely great, but I could definitely see unions forming out of this.
04221970 on
Is it a surprise that there is no legal path to fight RTO?
In what universe should a company be forced to not require RTO for standard regular employees?
voiderest on
Going to work for someone else is an option. The time-frame on a move kinda depends on the individual and industry. Going from remote to on-site is effectively a paycut so that’s a good reason to go looking. The hiring process is kind of a mess right now and there is a downturn wall street is trying to ignore.
There may also be legal issues associated with constructive dismissal or using RTO as a stealth layoff. The company may also have long-term issues with keeping/hiring people they want. There is also the issue of people being less inclined to put effort into things beyond normal job duties if everyone is unhappy or doesn’t expect to be working there in a year or two.
colonel_beeeees on
It’s called a union. The thing that tech workers love to say they don’t need
Sure they do, quit. Companies that want to compete will keep offering remote work as an incentive
jbmowgli on
If only there was a way employees could stand together, and negotiate with their employers for working conditions that they desire….
nate2337 on
No…it’s called “employment at will” for a reason…
Leverkaas2516 on
> have essentially no legal path to fight them
There are lots of legal ways to fight them. What is suggested is that there’s no way to use the courts to coerce employers to employ remote workers. And that’s as it should be.
S7EFEN on
the only decent legal argument is for disability accomidations i think. employers going to have a hard time arguing wfh is unreasonable if theyve allowed wfh for 5 years.
SplatThaCat on
Which is why they will go the malicious compliance path, like I am taking.
No extra hours like they got from me when I was WFH 5 days a week (they literally got a 10 extra hours as I would start when I would normally leave for work – and it takes 1 hour there, 1 hour back).
Add to the fact that half the time because one office closed there literally are not enough desks and people are coming in and going back home because the other option is to sit on the floor!
cyanrave on
I get it, we all got awesome setups during COVID, but damn if people didn’t ruin RTO by not getting the numbers where I work.
We did 3 day RTO optional, nobody showed. Our facilities and staffing were in a serious rut. We lost support staff left and right, but it also gave facilities the chance to make huge improvements.
We did 4 day RTO mandatory, and people still divert to 3 day RTO or fewer and chances are it’ll now go on performance reviews.
I get that it sucks by I genuinely enjoy the little breaks in between Zooms to talk to people I would never talk to in the small hallways Zoom creates. Mileage may differ.
ModernWarBear on
I’m just thankful my company was never in office to begin with.
Drunky_Brewster on
It’s a political issue and needs to be treated as such for anything to change. For example, those who live in Seattle need to vote in people to their city council who will repeal any tax breaks corporations get for having a certain amount of people in office. Vote in people who will pass laws that make it easier for developers to turn those office buildings into residential instead of laws that only allow for new construction.
We need to start paying attention to our local elections to make any lasting changes.
chronomagnus on
Quiet quitting is a solid answer. Drive down that production, make them do pips and go through a process, make it costly and slow to let you go.
divvyinvestor on
RTO is universally hated across the globe except by a handful of executives and commercial real estate owners who stand to lose fortunes.
I think it will eventually become vogue again to let people work remotely. By then the commercial landlords will have offloaded to buildings to the next generation of suckers.
Erazzphoto on
I have zero interest in ever returning to an office, but I also understand this is the companies decision, and they have that right. I have just as much right to pursue a new employer. Short of a contractual breech, there’s no law against a company making those decisions, nor should there be.
TacoThrash3r on
That would be what a union is for I think?
thejesterofdarkness on
Yes they do: free market.
Just walk.
TheAngriestChair on
It’s called unionize
Vo_Mimbre on
It’s business insider. This isn’t the go-to publication for cultural change and worker rights. This article is textbook “don’t worry about it business person, your employees can’t do shit and the loudest ones will quit”.
J-drawer on
There’s no legal path, but there’s enough research showing that working from home is better for productivity.
It’s complete stupidity on management’s part to force them back to the office.
Daimakku1 on
How is this technology related?
Main-Engineering4445 on
Sure we do. I quit.
lonsdaleave on
your rights depend on the job description and legal documents you signed when getting hired.
32 Comments
AI Summary:
* **No Legal Recourse**: Most employees have no legal grounds to fight return-to-office (RTO) mandates unless there’s a protected reason under established law, such as a medical circumstance.
* **At-Will Employment**: The majority of US employees are considered “at-will,” meaning employers can terminate them at any time for any legal reason, and employees can quit at any time.
* **Employer’s Decision**: Employers have the authority to decide whether a job should be performed remotely, unless there is a contractual obligation stating otherwise.
* **Reasonable Accommodations**: Employees with medical reasons may have legal recourse if an employer rejects a doctor-prescribed “reasonable accommodation” for remote work under certain state laws and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
And all of these companies are basically colluding by forcing RTO at the same time to stop people from leaving in droves to other companies offering full WFH to get the talent. I’m sure they all had a chat about it in Davos.
I mean, the reason we are still talking about RTO right now, is that employees are fighting and winning against them.
Dell cant even get its people back into the office with threats against promotions. Others are dealing with the same issues, the good employees are leaving to companies that are hybrid/virtual, the bad employees are remaining causing projects to slid, and timelines to get blown up.
There is a reason multiple studies have concluded you hurt your company by forcing RTO in the longrun, vs the little financial hit you take on leases.
I’m in the industry and think I have it absolutely great, but I could definitely see unions forming out of this.
Is it a surprise that there is no legal path to fight RTO?
In what universe should a company be forced to not require RTO for standard regular employees?
Going to work for someone else is an option. The time-frame on a move kinda depends on the individual and industry. Going from remote to on-site is effectively a paycut so that’s a good reason to go looking. The hiring process is kind of a mess right now and there is a downturn wall street is trying to ignore.
There may also be legal issues associated with constructive dismissal or using RTO as a stealth layoff. The company may also have long-term issues with keeping/hiring people they want. There is also the issue of people being less inclined to put effort into things beyond normal job duties if everyone is unhappy or doesn’t expect to be working there in a year or two.
It’s called a union. The thing that tech workers love to say they don’t need
No paywall: [https://archive.ph/JIkXX](https://archive.ph/JIkXX)
Sure they do, quit. Companies that want to compete will keep offering remote work as an incentive
If only there was a way employees could stand together, and negotiate with their employers for working conditions that they desire….
No…it’s called “employment at will” for a reason…
> have essentially no legal path to fight them
There are lots of legal ways to fight them. What is suggested is that there’s no way to use the courts to coerce employers to employ remote workers. And that’s as it should be.
the only decent legal argument is for disability accomidations i think. employers going to have a hard time arguing wfh is unreasonable if theyve allowed wfh for 5 years.
Which is why they will go the malicious compliance path, like I am taking.
No extra hours like they got from me when I was WFH 5 days a week (they literally got a 10 extra hours as I would start when I would normally leave for work – and it takes 1 hour there, 1 hour back).
Add to the fact that half the time because one office closed there literally are not enough desks and people are coming in and going back home because the other option is to sit on the floor!
I get it, we all got awesome setups during COVID, but damn if people didn’t ruin RTO by not getting the numbers where I work.
We did 3 day RTO optional, nobody showed. Our facilities and staffing were in a serious rut. We lost support staff left and right, but it also gave facilities the chance to make huge improvements.
We did 4 day RTO mandatory, and people still divert to 3 day RTO or fewer and chances are it’ll now go on performance reviews.
I get that it sucks by I genuinely enjoy the little breaks in between Zooms to talk to people I would never talk to in the small hallways Zoom creates. Mileage may differ.
I’m just thankful my company was never in office to begin with.
It’s a political issue and needs to be treated as such for anything to change. For example, those who live in Seattle need to vote in people to their city council who will repeal any tax breaks corporations get for having a certain amount of people in office. Vote in people who will pass laws that make it easier for developers to turn those office buildings into residential instead of laws that only allow for new construction.
We need to start paying attention to our local elections to make any lasting changes.
Quiet quitting is a solid answer. Drive down that production, make them do pips and go through a process, make it costly and slow to let you go.
RTO is universally hated across the globe except by a handful of executives and commercial real estate owners who stand to lose fortunes.
I think it will eventually become vogue again to let people work remotely. By then the commercial landlords will have offloaded to buildings to the next generation of suckers.
I have zero interest in ever returning to an office, but I also understand this is the companies decision, and they have that right. I have just as much right to pursue a new employer. Short of a contractual breech, there’s no law against a company making those decisions, nor should there be.
That would be what a union is for I think?
Yes they do: free market.
Just walk.
It’s called unionize
It’s business insider. This isn’t the go-to publication for cultural change and worker rights. This article is textbook “don’t worry about it business person, your employees can’t do shit and the loudest ones will quit”.
There’s no legal path, but there’s enough research showing that working from home is better for productivity.
It’s complete stupidity on management’s part to force them back to the office.
How is this technology related?
Sure we do. I quit.
your rights depend on the job description and legal documents you signed when getting hired.
Unionize
https://www.iww.org/organize/
Is this not constructive dismissal? Changing terms of the work substantially without employee input?
Sabotage can be quite effective when done internally by a large group of angry people
Do you know what is PERFECTLY legal? Getting a new job.