this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2025
709 points (98.0% liked)
LinkedinLunatics
5421 readers
108 users here now
A place to post ridiculous posts from linkedIn.com
(Full transparency.. a mod for this sub happens to work there.. but that doesn't influence his moderation or laughter at a lot of posts.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What I dislike is the constant push to get people in more and more often. It seems clear that they want everyone in all the time eventually. I can't even afford that kind of commuting cost since they moved the office over 50 miles away.
Yeah, I get that.
The difference is that everyone on my team was hired with the understanding that either they're local or they'd relocate after the COVID restrictions were lifted, so remote work was a temporary situation. The understanding was always 2 days in office (despite corporate policy being 3 days), and our VP ensured it stayed that way for 4 years. At the end of that, our CEO and VP changed, and we were forced onto the existing 3-day in office corporate policy, and they require that one of those days are Monday or Friday.
IMO, that's totally acceptable. It's not like these other companies that advertised full remote and then switched to hybrid or even full in office.
The real problem is the bait and switch. If you're going to change the terms of the deal, give people a lot of time to adjust. If you're going to change from full remote to hybrid or full in office, give people multiple months to adjust since they may decide to move.
There is no amount of time that could ever make the bait and switch reasonable, changing a commute from less than 5 miles to well over 50 is not something you can adjust to.
Give us that redundancy payout if you really insist its necessary to come into the office. Then have fun when you have no one left that knows how the product works.
I disagree, I think 6 months is fine, and if the relocation of the office is significantly far away (i.e. your case), then also offer a relocation package. That gives people enough time to find new work, sell their house/lease, etc. Maybe it's better to offer people their choice of severance or relocation, but I don't think severance is necessary if they give sufficiently advanced notice.
A company shouldn't be able to avoid giving out redundancy payouts just by moving the office and saying well you should move.
I think that really depends on circumstances. Given enough notice, it's clear they're not just trying to get away with a lower cost workforce reduction, because they're giving employees plenty of time to either find a new job or relocate.
Sometimes moving a workplace is necessary. My company manufacturers dangerous materials, and they have operated a test side for decades in one area. People have recently started moving to that area and have been complaining about the llw-scale manufacture and testing at that facility, so they moved the facility about 50 miles away to be more remote and not bother people. The company wanted to keep the site where it was, but that became increasingly unreasonable. There was no incentive here to cut staff, they needed to move to ensure we could continue to operate safely. I wasn't part of that group so I don't know specifics, but I do know the process of moving to the new site took well over a year and was announced well before any movement was started.
As long as something is announced with enough forewarning, I think it's fine. Severance pay is only needed when there's little notice, since the whole point is to give employees enough capital to bridge to the next job.