So now that the Covid19 pandemic has officially ended and so have any restrictions can employers force employees to continue working from home? Can they also force employees to provide the company with free internet service, electricity, and office furniture? Can employees be fired just for showing up at the office to work? Would that be considered grounds to deny unemployment benefits? I’m interested in the US, but what is the situation abroad?
In general, an employer can decide that any given job is fully remote (or fully onsite, or some of one and some of the other), take it or leave it.
They can’t force you to sit at home - I imagine that’s a preference of most employees. But they want you to do certain tasks, be available (i.e.phone and/or internet) etc. And… not provide you the workspace to do it, leaving that up to you.
I suppose if the corner of Starbucks isn’t too noisy, and you don’t get kicked out - then that works.
Generally speaking, employers have the right decide where and what hours business is conducted.
This is true in the sense that the company can’t send armed thugs to your home to make sure you’re working from there. But if they want to specify that work must be done at the employees home or in the office that’s certainly acceptable. We handle a lot of personal health information as well as personal identification information, so security is something that’s fairly important to use. And our acceptable use and remote access policies, which employees sign as a condition of employment, outline the conditions under which they can work from home.
the only “technically correct” answer is … depends on your juristiction …
IANL, etc… and based on where I live (chile) … an amendment to the original work contract would be your safest bet as an employer, and of course this amendment needs to be signed by both parties, modifying the original work contract.
Mind you, many new (new=post-covid) work contracts might have a clause that allows the employer to “send” you to work-from-home at their discretion - then an amendment is not necesary.
If you have people work from home, you as the employer also need to provide some basic infrastructure (quality office chairs, and IT-hardware, etc…) … and you are on the hook if the worker slips in his house as this will probably be ruled a work-accident and will impact the employer’s insurance premiums (plus opens you up to all kinds of shenanigans, like falling at 22.00h in your free-time, but declaring you fell at 9.30h in your office-time).
edit to add:
labour laws here, allow the worker to define “home” … so it says something like "the worker’s home, or any third place the worker defines. So that could be the proverbial Starbucks, e.g. if the worker has a very small home and no privacy there. So even if your work-contract says home, the worker has discretion on defining this “home” - that could be the parents, a friend’s house or a coffee-house.
You’re assuming there even is an office. If a company is making all of their employees work remotely, why would such a place even exist? Maybe the boss works from her home, too.
On this issue, most jurisdictions would allow you to write off a reasonable amount of these expenses on your taxes, as they’re essential for you to do your job. How they calculate that amount may be tricky, but you can usually find out how to do it if you look for it.
I have a signed telework agreement with my employer that specifies that remote work must be done in my home, using my own wireless network. Starbucks definitely not allowed.
In the U.S. you can deduct home office expenses (including the use of a dedicated room) using form IRS 2106.
Nobody can force you to work from home because of the 13th Amendment. But an employer can make working from home a condition of a job and then the employee has the choice of accepting that condition or quitting that job.
They can certainly make requirements regarding your workspace, such as a private area, access to a private internet network, etc.
My team can work from home if they want but they have to work out of a pre-approved space that meets these requirements.
Exactly. I work for a post-acute hospitalist group, so the actual place of service is nursing homes and rehab facilities. We used to have an office for the office manager and where we could meet as a group every so often without having to reserve a private area at a restaurant or coffee shop. When COVID-19 hit the company decided to stop renting the space. We no longer have an office to go back to, even if we wanted to.
I would think that a lot of that would have to be made clear up front, when someone is hired.
I’m not so sure it’s kosher for them to just up and decide that they’re going to make you work from home when you’ve previously been working from the office, and require you to get private internet access as a result, or more bandwidth than you already have, etc… Now if they provide it, that’s a different story.
It’s not kosher from a public benefit position, but employment law, particularly in the US, is so biased in the employer’s favor these days, that “Do it or quit” is pretty much an automatic win for the employer.
Note that in the U.S. employment contracts are not the norm. Salaried employees are typically hired based on an offer letter that outlines salary, and a set of company policies that specify benefits. The employer can change these at their discretion with no agreement from the employee. The only people with employment contracts are typically non-employee contractors, and high-level executives (that’s why you hear about CEOs getting fired with severance packages worth $10 million).
There are labor laws that give some guidelines for some conditions, but the place of work is a condition of employment set by the employer. Under some conditions an employee may be able to challenge a unreasonable change in working conditions as constructive dismissal, but this get into the legal weeds. Simply requiring an employee to work remote would not be considered unreasonable, and in fact it became the norm under covid. It was and still is at employer’s discretion.
Interesting. Most people are worried about the other way around right now.
Yes, generally. However, if one employee is singled out for working from home, there might be a larger issue. For example, if you are the only non-white employee and you are the only one who must work at home, you may have a case for employment discrimination or constructive dismissal.
If the company requires you to work at home, they might provide a computer but the infrastructure will be your responsibility. In some cases a company may pay for internet service but this is a matter of company policy and not required by law.
Assuming there is an office to show up at, they can’t fire you for just coming there. But they can decline to give you space to work there.
Cite, please? Whenever two parties agree to an exchange of considerations of value to each, that’s a contract. And an employer can’t just say “We’re changing the pay rate for the work you did in the past month”, because that would be a breach of contract. The company might have broad power to change the terms of the contract going forward, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a contract.
Is the address of your home specified in the agreement? … what if you (and potentially 100s of coworkers, too) move? … Does HR need to issue a new agreement?
That’s true , but when people refer to amendments to original contracts that must be signed, they aren’t talking about the sort of contract you are.
Although I will point out
The only people with employment contracts are typically non-employee contractors, and high-level executives (that’s why you hear about CEOs getting fired with severance packages worth $10 million).
is not quite correct - union members typically work under a written contract
In the UK an employer cannot “force” anyone to do anything.
If they want an employee to work from home, they are expected to negotiate an agreement. It can be individual or collective. If an employee was told that they have to work from home, they would have a case for constructive dismissal.
There have been some problems where employees who are not offered home working, claim that they are at a disadvantage compared to those who work from home and have reduced commuting costs, so it works both ways.