90 Workers Given a Choice: Relocate Across the US, or Leave the Company (businessinsider.com) 172
"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.
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.
My third choice (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: My third choice (Score:2)
If a company starts to change the employment conditions it's a sign of a company failing.
Re: (Score:2)
I might have a little more leverage at work than a typical customer service rep, but ultimately I'm replaceable as well. If I demand a billyun dollars and dancing girls to feed me peeled grapes while I work, I'll be shown the door and someone similarly qualified will be at my desk within a
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention it's a fucking lifestyle company selling backpacks and fleece jackets. How sERiOUsLy should anyone really take that job? I mean, if they pay well (for the position) and you like living in Reno then sure, go for it. But don't dress this up like it matters or is a test of anyone's "value." It's pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to sound elitist, but I'm pretty sure that the most "talented and best" people generally don't wind up in customer service. I seriously doubt that anyone in customer service, anywhere, ever "held all the cards".
Truth
I might have a little more leverage at work than a typical customer service rep, but ultimately I'm replaceable as well. If I demand a billyun dollars and dancing girls to feed me peeled grapes while I work, I'll be shown the door and someone similarly qualified will be at my desk within a month. Full-time WFH isn't an option for me, either.
Bring value added to the work, and you will make the company think long and hard about letting you go. We had several people who were technically the same as I was. But they considered several things in their contract as being taken advantage of, like travel, anything more than 40 hours a week, staying late to finish up some work for an early meeting the next day, or doing anything with a modicum of danger involved.
They were pissed off that I was paid 3X times what they were, and even tried to make
Expect contract covered remote to on-site (Score:2)
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)
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.
This is the way... (Score:2)
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)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Guess companies are relaxing about retention (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If you got a better job offer, would you give your employer 72 hours?
Employers act like you're some kind of traitor if you don't give them two weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
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
This says (Score:2)
Adapt by buying smaller today (Score:3)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Exactly (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
These are CSR jobs which don't pay much.
They can't buy a house on that income unless their spouse is the primary breadwinner.
In that case, they aren't gonna move.
$4000 won't pay for much of the move (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Don't want to deal with high cost of living? (Score:2)
WFH is that productive! (Score:2)
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?
Customer service (Score:2)
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
Re: Customer service (Score:2)
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??
I swear if I hear ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is just a trick to avoid paying (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
They're Orwellian double speak laws (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It's cute that you think that (Score:2)
I remember back in the day I know a blind guy who got told to move to another site where there wasn't any public transportation. He obviously wasn't going to be driving there himself and it was a good 20 miles out of town. Naturally he didn't take the job since he couldn't learn to teleport or magically fixes visio
Re: (Score:3)
Mandatory arbitration agreements may state that unemployment compensation is subject to arbitration, but this is not enforceable.
https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/reci... [eeoc.gov]
https://blog.dol.gov/2023/03/2... [dol.gov]
https://www.fosterswift.com/co... [fosterswift.com].
No.... (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Not uncommon (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
...companies do this
All of the better workers, who have options, will quit
The only ones agreeing to move will be the desperate
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Wonder if it's to avoid CA employment laws? (Score:2)
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?
Re: Wonder if it's to avoid CA employment laws? (Score:2)
California is an at will state. I got fired from Technicolor for violating an NDA they hadn't mentioned, much less asked me to sign.
Re: Wonder if it's to avoid CA employment laws? (Score:2)
Also, Patagonia HQ is still in Ventura, California. They donate a lot to local causes there.
Re: Wonder if it's to avoid CA employment laws? (Score:2)
No severance requirement in California. At will employment. But regular noncompetes are invalid. And some labor protection about and beyond NLRB. California is not really so much left as it is a mixed bag of idealologies that is hard to categorize on a simple left-right scale.
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Of all jobs that you can easily do remotely ... CS is super high on the list. Who the heck cares where you physically are?
Re: Wow (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, when you're in a boiler room full of people on phone calls, there are lots of distractions and hinderances to productivity.
Re: (Score:2)
Managers who have nothing to do but walk around and look over your shoulder.
Zero Loyalty (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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"
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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 /.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 have it worse (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like nonsense (Score:2)
not much time (Score:2)
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.
Cross Patagonia off my clothing options please (Score:2)
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
Re:3 days to decide? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a bit rough. When word gets out (oops, too late) it will hurt recruitment and retention. They should've given 2-3 months to decide.
They should've also changed the "must live within 60 miles of the office" to "must be able to be in the office on your in-office shift and, with 1 business day's notice, be in the office for any shift where you would otherwise be working at home." If you want to live 61 or 610 miles away and commute, that's your business.
As for the "cost of living" that's easy: Your local-cost-of-living wage-adjustment will be based on where your office is, not where you sleep at night. If you live in a town 59 or 590 miles away that's a lot more expensive to live in or a lot less expensive to live in, that's your choice.
The 3 days is problematic. As a rule of thumb if someone gives you an artificially short deadline it's because they're trying to pressure you into making a particular decision. In this case they want people to quit since they're "200% to 300% overstaffed" and 3 days is a very short time to decide on a move, particularly if a spouse is involved.
As for the local-cost-of-living wage-adjustment of course it should be based on the office and not where you choose to live. A major point of telecommuting is being able to live somewhere with a lower cost of living.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit rough. When word gets out (oops, too late) it will hurt recruitment and retention. They should've given 2-3 months to decide.
They should've also changed the "must live within 60 miles of the office" to "must be able to be in the office on your in-office shift and, with 1 business day's notice, be in the office for any shift where you would otherwise be working at home." If you want to live 61 or 610 miles away and commute, that's your business.
As for the "cost of living" that's easy: Your local-cost-of-living wage-adjustment will be based on where your office is, not where you sleep at night. If you live in a town 59 or 590 miles away that's a lot more expensive to live in or a lot less expensive to live in, that's your choice.
The 3 days is problematic. As a rule of thumb if someone gives you an artificially short deadline it's because they're trying to pressure you into making a particular decision. In this case they want people to quit since they're "200% to 300% overstaffed" and 3 days is a very short time to decide on a move, particularly if a spouse is involved.
As for the local-cost-of-living wage-adjustment of course it should be based on the office and not where you choose to live. A major point of telecommuting is being able to live somewhere with a lower cost of living.
The real question is whether the severance is more or less than they would make working through September 30. If it is less, then IMO, there's no rational reason for any of these employees to not say that they're going to move, take advantage of the extra vacation days, and then take advantage of at-will employment laws on September 30 and tell the company to go f**k themselves.
The best part of that approach is that the company will think that it has 90 extra workers, so they'll be forced to lay people off
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is whether the severance is more or less than they would make working through September 30. If it is less, then IMO, there's no rational reason for any of these employees to not say that they're going to move, take advantage of the extra vacation days, and then take advantage of at-will employment laws on September 30 and tell the company to go f**k themselves.
The best part of that approach is that the company will think that it has 90 extra workers, so they'll be forced to lay people off, and then in September, they will find themselves short-staffed because 90 people suddenly quit. It's the ultimate middle finger to bad management. Make their assholic behavior hurt as much as you can possibly make it hurt.
If the severance exceeds three months' salary, then this arguably does not apply, but if you can afford the monetary hit, it still might be the right thing to do.
Or they could take the severance, get a new job, and effectively earn double salary between now and October.
I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to spend 3 months of salary in order to inconvenience an employer.
"Across a country"? Really? (Score:2)
Their hub cities are spread across the northern and southern US, with hubs close to each coast and in the central US in both north and south. What's the farthest that anyone would have to move, something like northern Maine to Pittsburgh?
Unless each employee was assigned to a hub city, it's dishonest to say they were told that they have to move "across the country".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing these two PHBs did this by text, email and video because they anticipated being defenestrated if they did it in person.
I'm guessing they did this because they were working remotely and this is how most all business is conducted with them. They have some periodic on site training but for the most part the people that got this announcement work from home and they interact with management by e-mail and video routinely.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing these two PHBs did this by text, email and video because they anticipated being defenestrated if they did it in person.
I'm guessing they did this because they were working remotely and this is how most all business is conducted with them. They have some periodic on site training but for the most part the people that got this announcement work from home and they interact with management by e-mail and video routinely.
Oh, I figured it was because the managers are psychopaths who think this is totally normal human behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing these two PHBs did this by text, email and video because they anticipated being defenestrated if they did it in person.
I'm guessing they did this because they were working remotely and this is how most all business is conducted with them. They have some periodic on site training but for the most part the people that got this announcement work from home and they interact with management by e-mail and video routinely.
Oh, I figured it was because the managers are psychopaths who think this is totally normal human behaviour.
How does one communicate with an employee who always works from home? In your country, is employment forever, never to be laid off?
Like it or not, during the plague, it made sense for people to work from home when they could. Now, not as much. This is nothing more than inviting people back into the office, and since some will refuse, they get a severance package and go on their merry way.
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly that's one thing that's one heck of a short notice to ask somebody to relocate across a country
That's not the experience of a 1950-80s aerospace engineer family member. Quite typical according to him. At least once he moved before the rest of the family to be sure to find a really nice place for the wife and kids. Living in a small cheap apartment for a little while until then.
$4000 is not going to cover the full costs of for those employees of moving their entire household clear across the country.
You probably do not bring the entire household. A great time to de-clutter the junk that accumulates. Back to my example above, the wife was happy to leave some of the furniture behind. He had wanted to replace those pieces any
Re: (Score:2)
$4000 is not going to cover the full costs of for those employees of moving their entire household clear across the country.
You probably do not bring the entire household. A great time to de-clutter the junk that accumulates.
That's a terrible way to describe your wife and kids. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
You probably do not bring the entire household. A great time to de-clutter the junk that accumulates. Back to my example above, the wife was happy to leave some of the furniture behind. He had wanted to replace those pieces anyways. She said the move gave her the perfect excuse with no arguments against.
All part of the professional experience. While I didn't relocate permanently, my early work often had travel requirements. So the wife and I would go to the new place, and rent an apartment and all expenses would be paid for. Truth is, it was kind of fun. And allowed me to sock away extra money.
Devil's advocate... (Score:2)
These are 'support' people. Bottom of the totem pole or near it in my mind. Most support people aren't given any money to relocate (as I recall... it's been a while).
Support is where people without degrees (and who are willing to deal with 'customers' which isn't fun often) can find work. Companies know this and pay/reward accordingly. Just like retail, they assume there is a bottomless pool of interested people that they can churn through.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that wasn't that they had to relocate by then, it was that they had to inform HR that they were willing to relocate by then. Much different requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have an idealistic impression of what US law considers "illegal."