633
Leaked messages show Amazon will force a 'voluntary resignation' on employees failing to relocate near their team 'hubs' (archive.ph)
submitted 3 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
99 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Leaked messages show Amazon will force a 'voluntary resignation' on employees failing to relocate near their team 'hubs'::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 26 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

A company can’t hire you to work from one location (regardless if it’s WFH or not,) and then unilaterally decide to have you relocate.

In the use US, with at-will employment, they absolutely can. Terminating someone for not relocating is absolutely legal. And, barring contract or law to the contrary, severance is not required.

This state of things are what happens when you remove unions from the workforce, and why companies like Amazon absolutely flip their shit when union talk starts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Well, yes. But then they trigger unemployment. The can’t here is that they’re trying to avoid that.

    In the us, you have to pay unemployment if they’re not terminated for cause. And refusing to locate is not an “acceptable” cause, so it comes to be an at-will termination (ie “we’re firing you because we can.”)

    Also, the jobs they’re talking about usually come with severance packages. It’s not the warehouse gig workers

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    This is true.

    Qualifying for Unemployment Insurance benefits is a decision made by the State, not the employer, and the standard for qualification is much lower than the one used to determine if terminating an employee is legal or not. That is, there are many things that will get you UI benefits that are still perfectly legal reasons to fire someone, as you said.

    As an aside, UI is an insurance product sold (forcibly, by the State) to the employer. The employer pays a premium which rises or falls based on the number and cost of claims that employer generates. Naturally, employers are incentivized to reduce the number of claims to keep costs low, but it's not, as is commonly thought, the employer paying benefits directly.

    As another side, a strategy companies are using lately to keep their UI costs low is providing a severance package that pays all or part of the employee's salary but paying it out over time. Depending on the state and the rules for that state's UI program, that often counts against any UI benefit the former employee would receive, reducing the weekly benefit (sometimes to $0). It's a thing I've only seen in the past 5 or so years. I would expect States to start to recognize this end-run around the system and adjust the rules accordingly in the near future.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    As another side, a strategy companies are using lately to keep their UI costs low is providing a severance package that pays all or part of the employee’s salary but paying it out over time. Depending on the state and the rules for that state’s UI program, that often counts against any UI benefit the former employee would receive, reducing the weekly benefit (sometimes to $0). It’s a thing I’ve only seen in the past 5 or so years. I would expect States to start to recognize this end-run around the system and adjust the rules accordingly in the near future.

    this is an old strategy. It's called "severance." Many company will offer a severance package before going to lay offs that enhance retirement packages (especially for people close enough to it anyhow) or otherwise entice people to take it, instead.

    As an aside, UI is an insurance product sold (forcibly, by the State) to the employer. The employer pays a premium which rises or falls based on the number and cost of claims that employer generates. Naturally, employers are incentivized to reduce the number of claims to keep costs low, but it’s not, as is commonly thought, the employer paying benefits directly.

    It would really, really, suck if you had to rely on a former employer to pay unemployment. Just saying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Did you not see the end of their post?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Yes. "Layoff" has a very specific meaning in employment. In the US, it is, in one form or another, ending the employment agreement because there is no longer available work. I.e., "Your position has been eliminated."

    That's not the case in the "Everyone has to relocate to (place)" situation. It is not a layoff if you fail to comply. It is the company terminating your employment because you refuse to perform the job they want you to do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •