Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
IT

90 Workers Given a Choice: Relocate Across the US, or Leave the Company (businessinsider.com) 172

Posted by EditorDavid from the my-way-and-the-highway dept.
"The outdoor-apparel brand Patagonia has given 90 U.S. employees a choice," reports Business Insider: "tell the company by Friday that you're willing to relocate or leave your job." [Alternate URL here.] The employees all work in customer services, known at Patagonia as the customer-experience, or CX, team, and have been allowed to work remotely to field calls and inquiries. These workers received a text and email Tuesday morning about an "important" meeting... Two company executives, Amy Velligan and Bruce Old, told staff in a 15-minute video meeting that the team would be moving to a new "hub" model. CX employees are now expected to live within 60 miles of one of seven "hubs" — Atlanta; Salt Lake City; Reno, Nevada; Dallas; Austin; Chicago; or Pittsburgh. Workers were offered $4,000 toward relocation costs and extra paid time off. Those willing to relocate were told to do so by September 30.

If CX staff are not willing to live near a hub city, they must leave the company. They were given 72 hours, until Friday, to confirm their decision... Access to company laptops and phones was shut off later that day until employees either agreed to relocate or said they wanted the severance, one affected CX worker said...

Both employees who spoke to Business Insider believed this was because Patagonia didn't want to handle the increased demands of employees in states with higher costs of living. "We've been asking for raises for a long time, and they keep telling us that your wage is based on a Reno cost of living and where you choose to live is on you."
According to the article, "The company hopes to bring staff together at the hubs at least once every six weeks for in-person training, company gatherings, or 'Activism Hours'." A company spokesperson described the changes as "crucial for us to build a vibrant team culture," and said there were workers who had been complaining about feeling disconnected. Though there may be another motive: "The reality is that our CX team has been running at 200% to 300% overstaffed for much of this year," she added. "While we hoped to reach the needed staffing levels through attrition, those numbers were very low, and retention remained high."
One affected worker told Business Insider that the company's proposal "was very factual. If you don't live in these seven metro areas, you either need to move there or give us your stuff and hit the brick. If we don't respond by Friday, they will assume that we have chosen the severance package and we'll start that process."

One worker added that the severance package they received was generous...

Thanks to Slashdot reader NoWayNoShapeNoForm for sharing the article.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

90 Workers Given a Choice: Relocate Across the US, or Leave the Company More

90 Workers Given a Choice: Relocate Across the US, or Leave the Company

Comments Filter:

  • My third choice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Saturday June 29, 2024 @02:37PM (#64588195)

    Talk to a lawyer. Don't answer until you have.

    If you quit, they're off the hook for a lot. If they fire you because they changed the contract unilaterally there could be a much bigger payout than the severance they're offering. Likely not - their lawyers probably calculated to the penny how little they could offer while making it not worth your while to sue, but you might as well check with someone not on the company's payroll.

    You don't owe them any loyalty, they certainly had none for you.

    • It's absolutely their right to try a lawsuit.

      But, what would their standing be? The company is saying "your job has moved. move along with it, you don't have that job anymore". And, in the US, severance isn't mandated by law, right?

      If there's something you know about the legalistics here, I'm curious to know.

      • They might be able to make a good case for constructive dismissal, but I agree that a lawyer should be consulted to better understand what the available options are.

    • Talk to a lawyer. Don't answer until you have.

      If you quit, they're off the hook for a lot. If they fire you because they changed the contract unilaterally there could be a much bigger payout than the severance they're offering.

      I'd be surprised if the remote work contract did not have some clause about a potential conversion from remote to on-site.

      At my last on-site job relocation expenses were part of the standard default package if you were moving more than a certain number of miles.

    • Re:My third choice (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 29, 2024 @03:25PM (#64588311)

      Talk to a lawyer. Don't answer until you have.
      If you quit, they're off the hook for a lot. If they fire you because they changed the contract unilaterally there could be a much bigger payout than the severance they're offering. Likely not - their lawyers probably calculated to the penny how little they could offer while making it not worth your while to sue, but you might as well check with someone not on the company's payroll.

      Better advice would be: talk to a lawyer if and only if one will give that 60 seconds of their time to you for free.

      This is Reno, and Nevada is at at-will employment state.
      There is only a short list of protected classes it is illegal to discriminate over, and "where you live" is not one of them.

      Either party can end an employment term for any reason (except discrimination) including no reason at all.
      Either party can immediately execute the employment contracts termination clauses.
      Either party can offer up terms of a brand new contract at any time as well, and of course both parties can choose to agree to it or not.

      Given the details in the article, no laws have been broken here.

      That said, I still agree, if one has any doubts go talk to a lawyer practicing in your state who is familiar with your local laws. Just ask up front that they will do so without any fees.

    • Contact as many of your coworkers using outside methods (not work email or phones), and coordinate any efforts or knowledge. Different states might make this illegal or not.

      And I agree, only you have your own best interests at heart. HR is for the company, not you. Management is there to manage YOU, to make you profitable for the company. Or to get rid of you.

    • Re:My third choice (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve ( 949321 ) on Saturday June 29, 2024 @06:11PM (#64588719)

      Talk to a lawyer. Don't answer until you have.

      I wish I had saved a link to it and I'm not going to look for it, but back in the previous decade, perhaps 10 or so years ago, we had a post about some sort of "evil management against the workers" thread like this and a lawyer posted. He said that his area of expertise was workplace lawsuits. He said that when people talked to him about how their company "did them wrong", he asked them if there was any possible way they could just take the wrong and find a new job and get on with their lives. If they refused and demanded to sue, he warned them that most employee lawsuits fail. And they do. I can tell you that most US states have "fire at will" rules and you can be fired/laid off for anything at all. I'm not a lawyer, but it's hard for me to see this turning into
      1. Just sue!
      2. Win the lawsuit!
      3. Profit!

      • I get that workers have fewer rights in the US than in a lot of other Western countries (I'm Canadian). But if you're not sure of the law and think the company might be trying to hose you (they probably are), a short consult with a lawyer can be valuable even if they just tell you that yes, the offered severance is the best you're going to get.

        I had a meeting like that once. Actually, it was more like, "I can sue for you. You will win. The award will be less than my fee because you'll be paid lost wages

      • This isn't even an at-will situation. Most employment contracts in the world do not shield you from the nature of such a changed business decision, especially when the employer offers you compensation for relocating.

        About the only thing you could potentially argue is about redundancy payouts, but they are often expressly listed in the contract.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      Right there in the OP:

      >If we don't respond by Friday, they will assume that we have chosen the severance package and we'll start that process."

      >One worker added that the severance package they received was generous...

      They're not asking you to quit to get out of their firing obligations. The opposite is true. They're granting generous severance packages if you choose to not relocate.

      I also don't understand what more you could be entitled to in addition to that. Company is relocating your work site. The

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skegg ( 666571 )

      Talk to a lawyer.

      Is that the only viable option in the US? Seems potentially very costly.

      Where I live (NSW, Australia) I could take the employer to the Industrial Relations Commission [nsw.gov.au]. Basically free, aside from one's time. I've previously mentioned other free services we have via government departments. And in each case you're assigned a ticket, eventually you get your day, and the outcome has some bite !

      Don't get me wrong ... Australia is far from ideal; I *think* Europeans have even stronger protections. But I do feel fo

      • Talk to a lawyer.

        Is that the only viable option in the US? Seems potentially very costly.

        Where I live (NSW, Australia) I could take the employer to the Industrial Relations Commission [nsw.gov.au]. Basically free, aside from one's time. I've previously mentioned other free services we have via government departments. And in each case you're assigned a ticket, eventually you get your day, and the outcome has some bite !

        Don't get me wrong ... Australia is far from ideal; I *think* Europeans have even stronger protections. But I do feel for my American fellow Slashdotters.

        We here in the source of all problems have labor relation boards, and just because some slashdotter says SUE! doesn't mean that is the only recourse.

        But what this is here is a layoff. A novel approach where the employee makes the choice. And I don't know about Australia - ise laying off excess employees illegal?

        If you get a job in Europe or OZ, is it mandatory employment for your life, where you by law, cannot ever be let go?

    • Talk to a lawyer. Don't answer until you have.

      Why add additional cost to already losing your job? Leaving aside the "at-will" employment issues, in most places in the world, including those with good employee protection laws there's noting inherent in the law forcing employment. It would be virtually impossible to fight a functional change in a company like this, especially given that they offered compensation for relocation.

      Now maybe some fine details can be argued - is the compensation enough, will the redundancy payout be enough, but ultimately even

  • During during the pandemic years folks said it was pretty tough to hire the help they wanted. There was this narrative that folks were hanging onto employees the might not need right now, but were tough to hire. From the sound of this, that's over and they are willing to let those folks go back to the labor pool.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ranton ( 36917 )

      It doesn't sound like it is an issue of hiring, but an issue of not enough employees leaving on their own accord. My company is able to hire an extra 1k customer service reps right before our busy season because we assume a few hundred people will quit each month. This way no one needs to be laid off. But if we ever had a busy season with high retention we would probably have to lay off a few hundred people. It sounds like Patagonia over-hired because they assumed a lower level of attrition so they are usin

  • This is probably well within their rights, but it's crap. In particular, giving people 72 hours to decide in which way they're going to reshape their whole life, whether by chasing a job that is not guaranteed to them or by having to find new employment. I hope the severance package was a lot more generous than I suspect it was.

    • I fully agree, the details matter a lot here. Giving employees such a short time to respond smacks of a pressure tactic, oldest trick in the book of (shady) used car salespeople, scammers, and similar. From TFA it looks like they are overstaffed and want to cheaply reduce head count in the CX department. So it goes.

    • I hope the severance package was a lot more generous than I suspect it was.

      This. Patagonia was a great, ethical company. Chouinard, the founder, gave his ownership to a trust in 2022 so the money would do charitable work. If something has gone bad we need to know urgently.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jythie ( 914043 )
      Yeah, this really highlights the power imbalance. The company probably spent months setting this up, weighting options, checking contracts, setting up new space, etc. Workers? 72 hours to do the same.

      • Yeah, this really highlights the power imbalance. The company probably spent months setting this up, weighting options, checking contracts, setting up new space, etc. Workers? 72 hours to do the same.

        Never been laid off? The modern method is you get 15 minutes to clear out your desk, then security escorts you out of the building.

        Given what disgruntled employees often do for revenge, 72 hours is more than generous, and more than a little risky.

    • This is probably well within their rights, but it's crap. In particular, giving people 72 hours to decide in which way they're going to reshape their whole life, whether by chasing a job that is not guaranteed to them or by having to find new employment.

      The company spokesperson admitted directly that they are hoping and expecting to lose workers because they have 100-200% more people than they need. If they had simply laid people off, there would be no 72 hours and there would be no choice. This situation still isn't great for the workers, but it also doesn't necessarily paint the company as mean (at least in comparison to just laying off workers).

      I hope the severance package was a lot more generous than I suspect it was.

      "One worker added that the severance package they received was generous." Whether the actual severance offe

  • don't buy a house.

    • don't buy a house.

      No it does not. In the long run your house is an incredible portion of your "wealth", your "retirement". Get started as soon as possible, buy something smaller than what you aspire to just so you can get into the system. Do lateral moves when necessary. Upgrade to slightly larger when possible. Just get inside the system early and in the long run you'll likely win. This is how people had done things for many generations. They did not start out buying the aspiration mini-mansions. They did not think 6-7% int

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rujiel ( 1632063 )
        "For many generations"? I don't think the approach that you described is a very old one. In the US houses were affordable for working class families as recently as the 50s (if you were white and perhaps not Italian or Jewish), but now most of those houses are full of renters.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by drnb ( 2434720 )

          "For many generations"? I don't think the approach that you described is a very old one.

          Well its true for one side of my family going back to 1900s, 4 generations that I have details of. 1880s and 5 generations and some information on the other side. I've certainly met plenty of other people's grandparents who spoke about the tiny house that was all they could afford back in the day.

          In the US houses were affordable for working class families as recently as the 50s (if you were white and perhaps not Italian or Jewish), but now most of those houses are full of renters.

          Irish on the 1880s side, Italian on the 1900s side.

          Yes, more affordable, but the concept still holds. People have adapted their purchases to meet their income for generations. Various high school friends were do

        • In the US houses were affordable for working class families as recently as the 50s ... but now most of those houses are full of renters.

          Homeownership rates are higher today than in 1950.

          Also, the average house today is twice the size, and the average household has three people instead of five.

        • "For many generations"? I don't think the approach that you described is a very old one. In the US houses were affordable for working class families as recently as the 50s (if you were white and perhaps not Italian or Jewish), but now most of those houses are full of renters.

          It started when we doubled the available workforce, which ended up making both members of a couple have to work.

          Plus the mindless acceptance of that you must have a house, and you must buy one that is so expensive that you have to resort to "creative financing". Not a good move. but people bought into it.

      • Yes. Our children's first houses were 3/4 BR two car garage 2 bathrooms etc etc . My first house was the proverbial worst (2 BR) house in an unloved street in a downmarket suburb. Same for my wife.

        • My first house, which I bought in March 2000, was a 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom house with one car garage and about a 10,000 sf lot. It was located 15 minutes from the downtown core and cost $159K. I was making about $70K at the time, and single. I lived in Anchorage, Alaska. I had that house for over 13 years.

          My second house, which I bought in November 2013, and currently live in, is a 3 bedroom, 1 bathroom house with one car garage and about a 10,000 sf lot. It is located about 15 minutes from the downtown co

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
            Ok po both lots where10k sqftbjt how large were the 2 houses, arecall bedrooms the exact size? My point is why don't you specify the size of the house (sq feet) insured of a room count since the lots seam to be the same size

            • They were not big houses. The Alaska house was about 1600 sf. It technically only had 3 bedrooms, since the 4th one didn't have a closet (I used it for an office), 3 of the bedrooms were rather small, with two of them being suitable for small children or an office. The third one would have been ok for a teenage. The master bedroom was decent, but not huge. A queen sized bed and a full sized dresser basically filled it up. The kitchen and dining room were small and the living room was "just OK". It was a s

          • The key to buying a reasonably priced, affordable house is being flexible as to where you're willing to live and not insisting on living someplace new, fancy and fucking huge. You also don't have to "upgrade" just because you make more money. Regarding that first house, I got married 5 years after buying it and about 7 years after buying it, household income doubled compared to what I was making when I bought it. Regarding the second house, since buying it, our household income has increased from about $170K to almost $300K. We also now have an 8 year old child. Point being, just because your income increases, doesn't mean you have to increase your housing cost accordingly.

            Too many people stretch themselves and live on the edge of what they can afford, and then are surprised that they struggle to get by.

            This. So much this. Never fall in love with a house. I took a slightly different route. SO and I lived in a very nice mobile home for several years, while we saved money. Then we waited for a bit of a downturn, and found a single story ranch, and negotiated the price down to around 99K. This was in 1994. Paid it off in 14 years. Now it is worth around 400 K and rising.

            The people who claimed I was foolish for not buying a big McMansion are now begging for the single story houses. Turns out that 3 story Mc

  • 2 out of 3 (Score:3)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Saturday June 29, 2024 @02:53PM (#64588223)
    I'm fine with a company demanding their workers relocate. It's not always nice for the workers, but we don't live in a socialism. The workers don't run the company. The owners, board of directors, executives, and managers are the ones that run the company. Rail against it all you want. That's the way it is in a capitalism.

    It's also cool that the company is offering extra PTO for the people who relocate.

    I have an issue with the 4k moving expenses. That would probably cover the cost of renting a truck, and the supplies, food, and hotel rental required for a move. And that's if the person decides to to ALL the heavy lifting themselves. I'm not sure that would cover the cost of professional movers nowadays, and it wouldn't even scratch the surface if a person has a mortgage and they have to cover the expenses dealing with a change in home ownership.

    I suspect that 10k would be move more appropriate. Moving isn't cheap unless you're a single person, living month-to-month in an apartment, and you're willing to abandon all except your personal possesions.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by keltor ( 99721 ) *
      I know people who were moving to a different country who were offered $4k for moving expenses. I almost suspect it's some sort of a standard legal nonsense.

      A previous employer of mine asked me to leave and offerent "full cost relocation". At the same time my wife had an offer at her company to come and take over the Toyota USA Digital Marketing Team (this was the early years of this sort of thing) and we seriously thought about it, but in the end they realized about 1/2 way through that I wasn't a US citi

    • Except I believe the company flat said this was to reduce headcount. They aren't being 'generous' they are offering the basic minimum they believe they can get away with.

      You know, capitalism at work.

  • $4000 won't pay for much of the move (Score:3)

    by jhecht ( 143058 ) on Saturday June 29, 2024 @02:55PM (#64588231)
    It costs around $4000 to move one person living in a studio apartment from the northeast to the midwest. That and giving them three days to decide says they really don't wnt many people to move.

    • It depends.

      That $4,000 is a full-service move. If you rent a U-Haul instead, or a POD, not quite so much.

      But the cost is the least of the problems for these people. If your company treats people like this, who would want to move for that?

      • It depends.

        That $4,000 is a full-service move. If you rent a U-Haul instead, or a POD, not quite so much.

        But the cost is the least of the problems for these people. If your company treats people like this, who would want to move for that?

        How should people in what is a layoff be treated?

  • So they want you to move to Chicago or Dallas? Unless they live in New York or LA, they aren't really taking a step down.

  • Since they started WFH, the team is now considered to be 100-200% "overstaffed." So the team is doing 2-3x as much work as anyone expected!

    Now it's time to soft-fire a bunch of them.

    And it turns out that the jobs are effectively commodities, so they can force expensive workers out an still be just fine.

    Who knew?

  • The 72 hours is pure crap. It's such a poorly thought, planned, executed decision that person in charge of that decision should be let-go. That's not someone you want in your management layer.

    Also I would caution about moving locations for a job unless the opportunity/pay is substantially better or for family reasons.. oThere are loads of stories where people took the move package with a company only to get laid off some months later.

    Lastly, customer service is definitely going to get hit with the LL

    • Who the hell tries to return clothing they've been wearing for 1.5 years?? Patagonia will replace worn out clothes basically forever, but wtf trying to return a coat you got 2 winters use out of??

  • ... this BS excuse one more time from a company I'll puke. "crucial for us to build a vibrant team culture". Utter BS. Team culture is not dependant on location.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kick6 ( 1081615 )
      Tell me you've never had to do anything truly collaboratively over teams/zoom without telling me you've never had to do anything truly collaboratively over teams/zoom. Believe it or not, there are times when meeting in meatspace is actually the best approach.

  • This is just a trick to avoid paying (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday June 29, 2024 @03:58PM (#64588437)
    For severance and unemployment insurance. Lots of companies are doing it. You are almost certainly going to just get laid off a few months after you move.

    This is why we need less states rights and more federal protections. Whenever you hear somebody going on about states rights the next words on your tongue should be, states rights to do what?

    • it's called "right to work" in my very red 0 protections state (I was born here, I'd never move here lol). They can't fire you for EoE reasons, at least overtly, but they can fire you for anything else with 0 notice. Good luck proving it was for a protected reason.

    • Unemployment can only be avoided if you are terminated for cause. Being unwilling to move, doesn't qualify.

      Severance isn't required, regardless of the circumstances. It's only a courtesy, usually given to entice people to stick around for a few months until they are terminated. But there are no laws that say it's mandatory, at least not in most states.

    • "If we don't respond by Friday, they will assume that we have chosen the severance package and we'll start that process."

      So, no. It's not a trick to avoid severance.

      • "If we don't respond by Friday, they will assume that we have chosen the severance package and we'll start that process."

        So, no. It's not a trick to avoid severance.

        No, it's just a fancy layoff. Apparently a lot of people here believe that once hired, you can never be terminated.

    • For severance and unemployment insurance. Lots of companies are doing it. You are almost certainly going to just get laid off a few months after you move.

      You make this post every time such a story comes up, even on stories where they say they are getting severance pay. Hint: In this case the states in question are at-will employment states, they don't need to pay severance full stop. No need to make up a conspiracy theory. Dick moves can be dick moves without a conspiracy attached.

  • I have a friend whose company said, "Relocate from Boston to Dallas or goodbye with no severance." He's relocating, renting an apartment and leaving his family behind. I probably have some details wrong (one reason I'm not mentioning the company), but at one point his thinking was that they would likely do layoffs if too many people relocated, and he could get a good severance and move back.

    • Job opportunity-wise your friend will be better off relocating if they are in the financial services sector (guessing at that). Big Fidelity & Schwab campuses are here.

      Tax-wise will be beneficial; no State income tax in Texas but local "pay as you go" taxes can be higher. Renting avoids the high property taxes, but then you can't benefit from that at tax time.

      Culture-wise, the relocation will be a shock as will some local laws. Don't expect rents to be cheap either with many others relocating to the DFW

  • I never understood why... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Saturday June 29, 2024 @04:06PM (#64588459)

    ...companies do this
    All of the better workers, who have options, will quit
    The only ones agreeing to move will be the desperate

    • There are plenty of jobs where the difference between "good enough" and "very good" is quite small. Then there is no huge loss if some of the best will quit.

      All of the better workers, who have options, will quit
      The only ones agreeing to move will be the desperate

      The goal is not to get everyone to move. According to TFS:
      "The reality is that our CX team has been running at 200% to 300% overstaffed for much of this year,"

      They want some of the people to quit.

    • Staff cutting is never going to be a win for a company. You have multiple choices:
      a) Do something people don't like hoping they will quit - the people quitting may skew to those with better skills.
      b) Implement a voluntary redundancy scheme - the people quitting may skew to those with better skills.
      c) Create a complicated re-org scheme while culling the weak - this costs a lot of money, and is upsetting to the business operations resulting in mass inefficiency for years to come.
      d) Cull the weak directly by a

  • I know California is more left leaning and they offer many 'rights' that aren't available elsewhere. I wonder if this is an attempt to better control how many jurisdictions they must know about and obey?

  • Wow (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Saturday June 29, 2024 @04:27PM (#64588493) Journal

    Of all jobs that you can easily do remotely ... CS is super high on the list. Who the heck cares where you physically are?

    • My manager says he doesn't like video conference. I don't like the food at work. But the team meeting is only twice a week, so I think I have the stronger case.
       

      • My manager says he doesn't like video conference.

        Ha, my response to that would be "okay, then let's just do a group text chat, with no video".

        • In truth, that's how my last gig was: we communicated almost exclusively in group text chat. Ironically, all of our cubes were right next to each others', but it was still all text chat, unless I just happened, for example, to turn to the next guy and threw something at him, and it started a face-to-face. At some point, we completely abandoned weekly team meetings in a room: didn't need it.

    • Worse, when you're in a boiler room full of people on phone calls, there are lots of distractions and hinderances to productivity.

    • Managers who have nothing to do but walk around and look over your shoulder.

  • Zero Loyalty (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Saturday June 29, 2024 @04:28PM (#64588497) Homepage Journal

    This is yet another example about why Corporate America deserves zero loyalty.

    If you bust your ass for a corporation they'll still throw you to the wolves.

    Good on /. for running the story. Let's see Patagonia try to retain good IT staff now.

    Polish up your resumes before it's too late.

    I heard my first ad for a job-stacking consultancy this morning.

    And so it goes.

    • This is yet another example about why Corporate America deserves zero loyalty.

      If you bust your ass for a corporation they'll still throw you to the wolves.

      Good on /. for running the story. Let's see Patagonia try to retain good IT staff now.

      Polish up your resumes before it's too late.

      I heard my first ad for a job-stacking consultancy this morning.

      And so it goes.

      When I got into the BIG CORP working world way back in the mid-80s you could have a sense of loyalty to SOME employers and the sun was slowly fading on the remaining few good companies.

      At least the BIG CORP where I was working at the time really tried to develop employees "in house". Good pay for salaried staff; Union staff were tied to a rigid pre-defined pay schedule in their contract (their choice, I believe). 401K match. Internal employee training programs for both Union and salaried staff. College tuit

    • Good on /. for running the story. Let's see Patagonia try to retain good IT staff now.

      This is not IT related. From TFS:
      "The employees all work in customer services"

    • This is yet another example about why Corporate America deserves zero loyalty.

      Why do you think this is about America? No company deserves your loyalty. Your employment is a business decision, nothing more. You're not part of a family. They are not your friends. They pay you in exchange for your skills and time - that is it. That is it in corporate America, that is it in union heavy France, that is it if you're working at a tapas restaurant on a Spanish island.

  • Not a Slashdot-worthy story (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maetenloch ( 181291 ) on Saturday June 29, 2024 @04:51PM (#64588553)

    Why is this even a Slashdot story? It doesn't involve technology in any way and relocate-to-this-location-or-leave ultimatums are not uncommon in the business world so it's barely even a business story. Are we now going to have posts for every single announced corporate layoff?

    • Remote work is enabled by technology that has matured only in the last few years. It's highly popular and relevant for technical people. I do think this was good to see on /.

      • Remote work is enabled by technology that has matured only in the last few years. It's highly popular and relevant for technical people. I do think this was good to see on /.

        And that is why I submitted this story.

    • Why is this even a Slashdot story? It doesn't involve technology in any way

      Because it is of direct interest to Slashdot, and currently the second most discussed story on the front page. Maybe you're not interested, but that would seem to be because your interests don't align with those of Slashdot, not because it's not relevant to Slashdot readers.

    • Why is this even a Slashdot story?

      Because slashdot is a commercial interest and is trying to increase ad impressions.

      By posting a comment in this story you have helped them with that, and signaled that you would like to see more of these stories.

      Do you really not understand engagement algorithms? They are that even when implemented by humans.

  • I work for a big pharmaceutical company. They pulled the same shit on us, except that they didn't tell us to relocate. They told us that our position was no longer required at our location, and opened the exact same position in another location, and told us to apply there.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Honestly, if you can do the job from anywhere with a decent internet connection, what is the point of this? Why not explain to the employees that their raises will ba based on one of the hub locations, but let them live wherever? This seems really unnecessary.

  • I can understand with doing away with remote work but 72 hours is not much time to make a decision that will affect more than just you if you have family. Should have given them at least a week.

  • As a consumer I'm appalled at how Patagonia is treating the customer service staff, who should really be allowed to work from home for such a role. I wouldn't want to be treated that way by the management. I've read rosy stories [nytimes.com] about the billionaire founders of the company donating bucketloads of cash [nytimes.com], but this action just squandered pretty much all that good effort as far as I am concerned.

    One of the things I hate most about companies that stop their work from home policies are the impact such a decision

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close