- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
Amazon CEO tells staff to work in office three days a week or look for another job::Almost 30,000 workers signed petition against return-to-office mandate in May
Amazon CEO tells staff to work in office three days a week or look for another job::Almost 30,000 workers signed petition against return-to-office mandate in May
A threat.
Therefore hostile termination.
Therefore severance.
Amazon CEO is a dumbass and literally just lost this fight.
I doubt it’s not carefully worded in corporate speak. It’s much more likely just The Guardian’s sensationalism. Amazon have an army of HR people; they wouldn’t make such basic mistakes.
Mandatory arbitration says that there is no fight. Laws simply don’t apply to companies anymore when you can’t try your case in a real courtroom.
Yeah, if I worked for Amazon, I’d say, “no. Now fire me, assholes. Go ahead.”
What exactly is the threat?
If I read the article correctly, the CEO’s statement is effectively saying that employees who refuse to work according to the companies policy, may be fired.
While I agree that it is bad policy, I don’t see how this is unlawful policy, nor do I see how enforcing the policy is a threat.
As far as I saw the other places had different wording, “it is not going to work out” or something like this instead of look for another job
Where I live the wording doesn’t matter, what matters if you signed an employment contract that states your job is remote, or even a lack of a mention of an office location where you are expected to perform work with an assumption (like the job posting specifying) that the job is remote then it’s enough for the job to be considered a remote job. If the employer then tries to alter that without trying to give you some form of compensation, it’s considered a constructive dismissal and you’d be eligible for employment insurance.