• @givesomefucks
      link
      English
      721 year ago

      And if they resign, no severance.

      Pretty sure Tesla is getting sued right now because they tried to call layoffs resignations with this same scheme

        • @TheDoozer
          link
          101 year ago

          I think you’re misunderstanding the cause and effect here.

          “They did something wrong which is why they’re getting sued” is not the same thing as “they are getting sued, therefore they must have done something wrong.”

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -51 year ago

            I’m just stating a fact. You can sue someone for anything, it doesn’t mean you’ll win. Just because someone sues you it doesn’t mean you actually did anything wrong.

            I’m just saying that saying that Tesla is getting sued for doing the same thing doesn’t actually mean anything. It can be said that Tesla did the same thing, but the fact that they’re getting sued for it doesn’t really mean anything until they win or lose (and maybe a little if they settle) the lawsuit.

    • ThrowawayOnLemmy
      link
      461 year ago

      Can an employee just refuse to go back and continue to work? I’d much rather be fired by them than give them a pass by resigning.

      • @reversebananimals
        link
        91 year ago

        Yes, but they don’t have to pay you unemployment, because they can say you’re not following employment requirements.

        • @Khanzarate
          link
          361 year ago

          they can’t change your job in order to get you to quit, though. You don’t have to agree to new requirements, and can get unemployment because they fire you for not doing so.

          In this case, this might still qualify as constructive dismissal. Even if it for sure would, not everyone will apply for unemployment, and they can still challenge it, causing delays and getting more people to not pursue it, ultimately resulting in a layoff that’s cheaper than it’s ought to be.

          • @reversebananimals
            link
            51 year ago

            Yeah - I’m not a lawyer, but my casual understanding is you can get out of that gotcha if you apply the rule equally to everyone at the company. No legal action against these RTO mandates has been successful so far.

            That being said, I didn’t fully read the article. Roblox is offering severance to those who don’t want to RTO - that’s less shitty than a lot of the other tech companies.

          • @AbidanYre
            link
            English
            31 year ago

            That seems like it would only apply to people hired after March 2020. Anyone before then would have been in office anyway.

            • @SheeEttin
              link
              English
              111 year ago

              Maybe. If both parties agreed to the change to become remote full time, then they’d both have to agree to change back. Though having a previous non-remote work agreement changed by an international state of emergency does give some weight to the employer side.

              But I’m not a lawyer.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      421 year ago

      If people were hired (say, in 2020) under the condition that they’re allowed to work from home, this might be considered constructive dismissal - that is, forcing an employee to quit in a way that is equivalent to firing them. The employees are then entitled to the normal rules for unemployment, and potentially severance pay, unused vacation cashout, and so on.

      I think Musk is facing several lawsuits along those lines, but might be moving to settle because the cost of arbitration would potentially bankrupt the company.

      • @Furedadmins
        link
        -111 year ago

        Constructive dismissal only applies when it is used to terminate someone who is otherwise protected, for example a whistleblower. Companies can change work location requirements more or less at will.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          171 year ago

          Constructive dismissal was advised as a suit by an employment lawyer representing Twitter employees in California in a published article when Musk ordered employees whose employment offers specified work from home needed to work in the office. It’s a hostile change to the work environment that is alleged to encourage employees to quit, as indicated by the messages saying that people who do not return to office will be considered to have quit.

          I mean, you’re not necessarily wrong, and I’m sure Elon hopes you’re right. But we will have to see how it plays out. The fun part is that CA law specifies that some types of employee cases have to be tried individually rather than collectively.

    • @phoneymouse
      link
      341 year ago

      Employees should sue since this is functionally a layoff.

      • @SheeEttin
        link
        English
        51 year ago

        That’s what unemployment is for. If they fight the claim, then yeah, lawyer.

    • @eskimofry
      link
      111 year ago

      They are actually not able to follow up. They are saying resign… not get canned. They actually cannot afford severance. Best way to fight back is not comply, not resign.

    • @Vodik_VDK
      link
      41 year ago

      Constructive or insightful comments, such as this, are the kind of content Lemmy should strive for.