If they wanted to shed a chunk of workforce they’d be on the hook for a period of notice as well as some compensation, and the employees would be able to file for unemployment insurance once let go. If the employee quits because they refuse to come back to the office then the company is free of those obligations.
Not a lawyer, but have had way to many trainings on unemployment law over the years.
Circumstance 1: An employee moved further away from the office and can no longer feesibly make the commute to the office. Back to office mandates would be a change in the primary work location. The employee would qualify unemployment even if they “quit”. This is the same for people who started remotely.
Circumstance 2: The employee became the primary caregiver of children or a relative due to the flexibility allowed in working from home. A back to the office mandate would not allow them to continue this. The employee can argue for unemployment due to a change in the required work schedule (my wife successfully did this back in 2010).
Circumstance 3: This one is a bit harder. The employee has performed their job superbly from home. They clearly and openly (preferably in writing) have stated they will not work in the office. The company has a back to the office mandate and then fires the employee for not showing up. The employee can argue this was a creative firing and the employer is on the hook for unemployment. The employee must have evidence that managers were aware of their unwillingness to work from the office prior to the mandate.
You’re focused on the individual scale - check out the WARN act requirements for larger scale layoffs. A lot of the RTO mandates were a way to skirt notice and compensation requirements by getting large numbers of employees to quit on their own.
If they wanted to shed a chunk of workforce they’d be on the hook for a period of notice as well as some compensation, and the employees would be able to file for unemployment insurance once let go. If the employee quits because they refuse to come back to the office then the company is free of those obligations.
Depends on the individual curcumstances.
Not a lawyer, but have had way to many trainings on unemployment law over the years.
Circumstance 1: An employee moved further away from the office and can no longer feesibly make the commute to the office. Back to office mandates would be a change in the primary work location. The employee would qualify unemployment even if they “quit”. This is the same for people who started remotely.
Circumstance 2: The employee became the primary caregiver of children or a relative due to the flexibility allowed in working from home. A back to the office mandate would not allow them to continue this. The employee can argue for unemployment due to a change in the required work schedule (my wife successfully did this back in 2010).
Circumstance 3: This one is a bit harder. The employee has performed their job superbly from home. They clearly and openly (preferably in writing) have stated they will not work in the office. The company has a back to the office mandate and then fires the employee for not showing up. The employee can argue this was a creative firing and the employer is on the hook for unemployment. The employee must have evidence that managers were aware of their unwillingness to work from the office prior to the mandate.
You’re focused on the individual scale - check out the WARN act requirements for larger scale layoffs. A lot of the RTO mandates were a way to skirt notice and compensation requirements by getting large numbers of employees to quit on their own.