top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 175 points 2 years ago (6 children)

This is how companies lay people off without having to report layoffs

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 41 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 74 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    When will these asshole narcissist CEOs learn? We dont want to go into the office to stroke your fuckin ego, douchebag.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    another out of touch shitbag CEO ~ sky blue yet

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 31 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Cool so what prevents me from not going in 3 times a week and also not resigning?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    I was given an ultimatum like this once, to do X or resign, and I chose not to do X and refused to resign, and I worked there for an additional nine months until I found something better. I did have to endure several meetings where they kept saying I "needed" to resign or comply, but they never fired me. Said I would get a bad reference, but since that's extremely risky on the company's part, I still used them as a reference. HR dgaf. They just know they can't say anything negative about a previous employee. The whole thing is absurd posturing.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago

    Unspoken here is the third option: navigate a series of untextured raised rectangular platforms littered with smaller rectangles that will fire you automatically if you touch them, designed by an 8 year old that got bored halfway through the engineering phase and wandered off to play Breakin Story 2.

    The good news is that, for only 399 robux a month, you can get VIP membership, which includes a coil that allows you to immediately jump over the entire platform and land into a dated pile of two dimensional meme sprites they meant to clean up.

  • source
  • [+] 25 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Many companies are doing this. They're OK with the attrition. Acceptable losses as far as they're concerned. I suppose it's their right. I hope those that quit over it find better jobs.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Exactly.

    My own experience in IT with companies which were even just starting to talk about layoffs is that the people who can much more easilly find new jobs - typically the better ones and the ones with hard to find or in more demand expertises - are the ones who leave first, often preemptivelly (though it does depend on their chances to get compensation for being dismissed and how much, so for example in certail legal jurisdictions were compensation depends on years employed there, you might seen the best of the newer employes just take off whilst the ones with many years there hold on for compensation because it's worth it for them).

    In fact if you're going to do cuts you better have the list of positions which are going to be cut already planned because in that period of uncertaintly between knowing there will be layoffs and knowing who is going to be kicked out is when those people who can easilly find another job will leave, if only because that removes the uncertainy of if and when they'll stop getting paid, reduces the risk of a gap between jobs and even lets you take your time when searching for a new job and thus get a better one (if you're kicked out whilst still having bills to pay being selective about your new job is sometimes not possible).

    Even were such effects only impact a small number of employees, it's never the least useful ones that leave preemptivelly.

    In this specific case with an ultimatum of the "do this thing that's going to be worse fo you because I say so, or else" kind, that's just going to give more reason for the ones who can leave more easilly to leave.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Roblox rhymes with sux cocks.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 17 points 2 years ago

    The smirk of a smug asshole.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago
    [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    Hey Roblox! Learn what the Dead Sea Effect means for you!

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago*

    But how are their parents going to get them to work? /s

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Punchable face

  • source
  • don't they all have school to go to?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago*
    load more comments
    view more: next ›