I personally believe that this is what some of these employers want, including my own. They want to reduce headcount without paying severance or unemployment.
In many states, being forced back to the office after working from home for a long period allows you to collect unemployment if you quit on those grounds. Check your state's requirements. IIRC it has to be demonstrable to be a significant burden but it can count as constructive dismissal.
i guess from experience that this was neither 'all hands' nor a 'dicussion'. it was 'whoever['s logged in before office hours| doesn't want to enjoy their lunch] gets to look at boomer memes and dull graphs for 2 hours while listening to the latest round of edicts graciously handed down by the Board.'
if you missed it, and you're lucky, they recorded it. if you're very lucky: you get an email with the slide deck and talking points for what could've just been an email to begin with.
Exactly. This thing itself is saying most people live outside of reasonable range of an office. And it says nothing about any sort of accommodation for those people or ability to continue remote work.
This is a 'relocate or quit' notice.
For those who were hired as remote workers, I hope they are smart enough to just say no to both options, force the company to lay them off and pay unemployment and severance.
You can also discuss adjusting your commuting times to minimize time spent on the road while still benefiting from being in the office with other employees.
Lol, how can commute times be reduced via a discussion?