"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.
Virtually everybody lives in an at-will state. The definition of an at-will state is one in which your employer doesn't need any reason to fire you. How does the constructive dismissal claim work? Is it your belief that they could fire you immediately if they wanted to, but have somehow, despite the huge legal department, blundered into the one way they can't fire you?
If this is just about unemployment benefits, sure: but you're eligible for unemployment benefits when you're RIF'd, too. You don't have to be constructively terminated to be eligible, just not fired for cause --- which is what termination in the ordinary course is.
If the whole thing about constructive termination is that they're doing this "voluntary resignation" thing to avoid unemployment benefits, then this makes sense. I had the initial impression it was about avoiding having to relocate, but it looks like I misconstrued.
I have the impression a lot of folks just like yelling at companies. As such, I have no doubt your initial impression is a large part of the discourse.
That said, I think it does meaningfully impact the people that are getting terminated. I'm willing to think the company isn't trying to deny unemployment, but if it does have that implication, this is very wrong.
Montana isn't especially pro-worker, either -- it's a staunchly conservative state -- it's just they didn't adopt many of the same statutes and wordings as the at-will states.
Ya, I don’t see Amazon getting out of unemployment in this case. But they can fire at will employees, even if their unemployment premiums will go up as a result, they don’t have to worry about lawsuits otherwise. It still sucks for the employee being dismissed even if they qualify for unemployment.
Unemployment benefits. Possibly a position retained remotely if it progresses to legal arbitration. But more importantly, precedent for other workers & the hit to unemployment insurance for the company. Obviously with Amazon's size its different but that unemployment insurance cost matters to most companies.
Why would there be legal arbitration? They already have the right to terminate you without cause. At best, wouldn't you be "winning" the recognition that they're simply RIF'ing you?
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.
> I think a unilateral change to the employment contract
These employees do not have employment contracts.
It sounds nit-picky if you’re unfamiliar with the law, but it’s very important that companies avoid giving the suggestion that there is an “employment contract”
Regardless, this is a company-wide policy change, not an action against an individual.
Companies close offices, shutter departments, and pull out of regions while giving employees to the opportunity to relocate all the time. This is well-trodden territory and it’s not constructive dismissal against an individual.
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…
It will depend to some degree on the state, though.
I'm guessing that AMZN also assumed that many would either move, or just eat the dismissal, and the cost of paying out those who fight it is still less than just giving unemployment to everyone. At least I hope they made those projections...
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.
There’s a group of unelected elites that have created an global organization known as the World Economic Forum whose stated goal is to abolish private property and bring about a “Great Reset” [0] across the globe, consolidating power and eventually removing borders - this necessitates keeping certain structures of power in place and growing the gap between the “1%” and the other 99%. Eventually the goal seems to be to widen the gap to the point that the general public is so poor as to accept communism as an alternative to the poverty with the 1% as benevolent dictators
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.
That's an entitled perspective… not everyone has the ability to easily walk away. There are people who have high medical expenses and can't afford a break in coverage, people on H-1B visas, people who are in roles which are not in high demand.
I was on an immigrant visa once and was experiencing undue pressure from my employer, so I know what it feels like. I still had autonomy and could calculate for myself what risk (in this case losing my right to be in the US) I was willing to take.
Maybe another way to think about it that is more productive is to ask yourself: what if my employer goes belly up? What would I do then? What degrees of freedom can I create to de-risk things. After all, my employer is not responsible for my success in life.
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.
I personally wouldn't choose to work for Amazon, for their remote work policy but also many other reasons.
But I do believe it is insulting to say to someone who makes a clearly thought out tradeoff decision that it is where they want to work (e.g. someone who already lives in Seattle) that they are victims. Just because it doesn't suit your preferences, doesn't mean it doesn't suit others' perfectly well.
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?
Nothing insane. Its insane to expect a specific company to change its policies for your preferences.
The way it is now some companies are remote others are not. They have different benefits. But what you want to do is strong arm everybody to do it your way.
Some of us don’t want to work remote and don’t want to deal with those who do work remote.
The way it is now allows me to work at companies that don’t offer remote and for you to work at companies that do offer remote.
People demanding remote work by force with unions are basically the lady who wanes to apply Safeway and target coupons at Walmart.
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
Before the flood of remote work die-hards start to flood this thread I want to implore you to spend that energy making better tools for remote collaborating.
It’s been 3 years since we started social distancing and exactly nothing is different today vs then.
We are still stuck in Notion, Zoom, and Slack. The unlucky ones are on MS Teams.
Remote learning is terrible for most people, remote training is similar. Ad hoc collaboration is still high friction, dev environments are highly local (where’s figma for web dev?)
Some of you are highly skilled and use these existing tools optimally but you don’t have the elevation to see that huge swaths of the workforce are struggling.
As if RTO solves this at all. Lots of teams are distributed across the many hubs. Amazon is basically asking a large number of its employees to commute hours into the office, or move across the country, just to sit on chime/slack all day anyway.
These companies were counting on a major economic downturn to scare employees back, and since that didn't happen are now going to use mandates and accept some increased attrition. It will work cause they all overhired like crazy, but maybe one in ten of the employees that quits as a result was truly essential and there will be some chaos internally as a result.
It's not about being in the office, innovation, or any of that BS. It's about control. The employer cannot control what they cannot see and monitor. In their minds, WFH employees are getting the job done but the risk to security, working for competitors simultaneously, or themselves for that matter on company time, and it instills this paranoia. Power has shifted to the employee and now the employer is working to take it back.
It's a way to avoid paying severance. Most companies do it but it's not talked about because it's highly illegal. Essentially, you can just assign someone menial tasks, refuse to promote them, etc until they leave. There's nothing illegal about doing that (if it occurs "naturally").
It's called constructive dismissal. The burden of proof is on the employee and it's a very high bar. If the employer has any excuse it won't work. "We didn't have enough work for them", or "there was no budget for promotion" would be sufficient to squash the case.
This seems more cut-and-dried. Many of these employees were hired with their official location as “virtual”, so there’s proof of a change by the company.
The other thing that is happening concurrently at Amazon is Return To Team (RTT). Let’s say that you didn’t get hired with “virtual” as your location, but Seattle. Your leadership has decided that the center of mass for your team is Austin (or Tempe, or Arlington). Not only do you have to RTO, you have to return to that office.
Its called constructive dismissal. Of course you have a choice to work from 10pm to 6am every day on a park bench but under US law the person is considered "fired" due significant changes in their work environment.
Seems more than a little debatable to me... could my employer require me to move to Alaska? if it's not in my employment contract, isn't it up to them to renegotiate or fire me?
> Because saying "you can keep your job if you uproot your life" isn't a fair choice.
Surely an employer and employee are free to choose the employment terms and when the terms are deemed unacceptable to either, they can part ways?
If you're a top notch Amazon engineer, for example, and you don't want to uproot your life it would be fairly easy to find another job that is more suitable, don't you think? All employment relationships have tradeoffs.
Employment relationships and tradeoffs are negotiated at the time of hiring. Abruptly changing the terms in the middle with no re-negotiation is unfair. Sure, employees are free to leave and find another job, but with a layoff an employee has many benefits such as severance that are offered, where as in this case there are none. Instead of laying off people, should Amazon be able to just reduce their salary to 0, then say they're free to resign if they're not happy with it?
> Employment relationships and tradeoffs are negotiated at the time of hiring. Abruptly changing the terms in the middle with no re-negotiation is unfair.
Concur that the employer has to behave within the confines of the contract. If not, that's a contract violation and they should pay dearly. Is it the case that they are violating contractual terms? Or are they operating within the flexibility offered by the contract signed by both parties?
Whether they have violated the contract, like all of law is up to interpretation; Most likely, given Amazon's large team of lawyers, I'm sure they could get away with almost anything.
Probably has something to do with mandated severance in some states if I had to guess. Otherwise they might have to show cause. But I'm completely out of my depth here
"You must do X to keep your job," where X in this case is something onerous but still doable for most (like moving to a different city so you can work in-office). If you refuse to do the onerous thing, then you're voluntarily refusing to do that which keeps your job. Therefore, it's a voluntary resignation.
I don't have access to this article, I would take it as changing conditions or duties to the least pleasant or practical that still fit within the terms of employment.
For example required on premises work, assignment to undesirable projects, moving to a different office.
How can they force their employees to resign, if they're going back on the terms they made before? I'm not familiar with American labour laws but this sounds illegal.
Generally speaking, employees in the US can be fired for almost any reason, as long as it isn’t for an illegal reason. While Amazon isn’t calling this “firing”, forcing someone to resign is essentially the same thing as far as the law is concerned.
I do not know how they can do this also, but it depends upon the State.
I think "blue" states Amazon would not be able to do this, "red" states I think anything goes. Red State Gov. only cares about not giving poor people money.
But unemployment insurance does, the next door red state has far worse unemployment and social support laws that where I live. They get 1/3 per month then were I am.
