What’s kosher and what’s legal aren’t always the same thing. Here in the United States, an employer has the right to unilaterally change an employee’s work location, supervisor, hours worked, vacation policy, and even their salary. Most employers don’t change these things on a whim because it’s a good way to chase employees away, but legally they can do it.
I know that; I’m more interested/concerned with the idea that something like internet access that’s traditionally been considered a home service like cable TV, telephone service, etc… can now be required for an employee to obtain.
I mean, what if someone is perfectly able to do their job in the office, but happens to live somewhere without adequate or reliable internet service? That seems awfully unfair for the employer to unilaterally switch their job to WFH and expect them to figure it out. I know it’s not fundamentally different than moving the work location away from public transit, and that we’ve already seen how a lot of it worked out in the pandemic with remote school.
@CookingWithGas is correct, the vast majority of workers in the United States do not have employment contracts. They may get an offer letter that typically includes salary, job title, but that’s not the same as an employment contract. An employment contract includes an expiration date, i.e. promising a specific length of employment, salary, and usually includes job duties. An offer letter doesn’t include any promise of future employment nor that your salary will remain the same. Oh, add job duties to the list of things your employer can change at any time.
You’re right, your employer can’t retroactively change your pay to less for work you’ve already done. But if you took an offer letter to a labor attorney and presented it to him as your employment contract they’ll explain to you that it isn’t actually an employment contract.
It might be “unfair” but it’s not illegal in the US. Just like it’s not illegal for my employer to tell me they are closing the factory/office in City A and my options are to be transferred to City B 100 miles away or to quit. Sure, if I quit it will be “constructive dismissal” - but all that means is that I will get unemployment benefits even though I quit.
You’d be considered to have been laid off rather than terminating voluntarily. I can’t see any reasonable company trying to argue that you quit. But then sometimes companies do some crazy things.
LOL! Even my administrator has had difficulty finding an internet provider in her home location.
I live in rural western PA.
Thankfully I have a great office and have no plans to work from home.
Our employees can choose to work several days per month from home but only if they want to.
Both sides offer a consideration, and both sides agree to that consideration. In what way does that fail to meet the definition of a contract?
I can’t see any reasonable company fighting unemployment on the basis that you quit either. But my point is was that “constructive dismissal” means that although you may have sent a resignation letter or said “I quit” in response to being told of the transfer/WAH requirements you may be eligible for unemployment depending on the details ( probably not if the new office is a mile away) . It doesn’t mean the company did anything illegal or that they will be fined or that you can sue the company.
An employment contract is a specific thing. I’ve explained what an employment contract is, but I’ve obviously failed to convince you. I invite you to look it up yourself, a short Google search will yield results.
Pretty much every company fights unemployment in cases where the employee voluntarily quit or they were terminated for cause. Here in Arkansas, employers pay into unemployment insurance and their rates may be affected by how many former employees collect unemployment. I imagine there’s a similar system in most other states.
As far as working from home, I’ve heard people argue for constructive dismissal in response to return-to-office orders but never for working from home. Barring some extenuating circumstances, changing work locations wouldn’t be considered constructive dismissal. You’d have to look at each instance on a case-by-case basis though.
I was replying to
which was about my original example of a transfer 100 miles away.
But the companies also know that a certain percentage of the employees won’t know or understand their rights, and so won’t contest the issue, saving the company at least some money. So they’ll tell you X, knowing that they’ll actually do Y if you make an issue of it.
Yes my address is specified in the agreement, and it should be updated when I move. I guess it’s a bit of a paperwork headache for HR, but dealing with paperwork headaches is in their job description.
There new office is 10-15 minutes from my house and I had been working there 3-5 days a week without issue until I was told I was no longer allowed to come in after my entire department was designed remote.
True and I made that point myself on another forum in a similar discussion. (In that discussion the OP was hired into a 100% remote position and now the employer is requiring them to come to the office full time.) A union contract is a collective bargaining contract rather than than a contract being executed for each individual employee, AFAIK. I have never been in a union.
Here is just the first source I found.
Key excerpts:
Some important details about an offer letter are:
- It is NOT a legally binding contract
- It does NOT include promises of future employment or wages
Details to consider about an employment contract include:
- It IS a legally binding contract between employer and employee
- It includes specific details about employment
- It may make specific stipulations on employment conditions that differ from “at will”
- Employers and employees cannot break the contract without consequences
- It promises employment for a set amount of time and set wages
It is considered a contract in the eyes of the law, that is, if you do the work you have to get paid as agreed. It’s a pretty narrow contract. That type of contract (in all states except Montana) implies that either party can terminate the contract at will with no penalty, and the employer can change the conditions of employment. They can unilaterally change anything that does not violate federal or state labor laws, such as the location of the workplace, your benefits, or working hours. (this does not apply to unionized jobs with union contracts). You can have an offer letter that says you will be working 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM at home, and a month later they can tell you that you’re on midnight shift in the office, and they have not breached a contract. If you have an employment contract, the employer cannot change anything stipulated in the contract without renegotiating the contract with the employee.
So does an employer need the permission of the whoever owns or rents the location they designate as the workspace for their employee to work there?
If the employer says that the employee must work remote, it’s pretty much up to the employee get any necessary permissions if the employee does not work in their own home. You are not going to have a company stipulate that some random third-party facility is the work location when they don’t lease the office space there.
I believe most non-union employment in Canada is essentially an implied contract, not a written one. As mentioned above, you do a task and receive a consideration. What both sides generally accept is considered the implied terms of the contract. If one side tries to change the terms, they need the consent of the other. Exactly how big a change constitutes “constructive dismissal” if the employee does not accept it is not precise, but some obvious ones from precendent - changing work location by a decent amount (i.e. new city), demotion to lesser role (even if pay or title stays the same - a common nasty tactic to hint to someone they should quit), significant pay cut, serious change of hours… However, the employee is over a barrel too. If they accept the new conditions (i.e. if you work in the new location) then that implies agreement. If you decline, you better hope that your lawyer can show it changes the implied contract sufficiently that it’s constructive dismissal.
Unlike the USA, dismissal, layoffs, constructive dismissal, and other 'departures" without cause effected by the employer can lead to a decent severance payout. It’s not the free-for-all jungle that it is in the USA, but not an iron rice bowl either.
If you take a job that requires work at home, then you are accepting that provision. If the employer requires you to be in a specific geographic spot or area, they will specify. If they want you to be in a private area when passers-by can’t eavesdrop on Zoom meetings, they will say so, or the level of privacy will be obvious from the job. (I would think it’s implied) If you’ve been working from an office and they spring this on you afterwards, then either you comply, or if you cannot, they have to figure out what to do - if they lay you off, then separation pay would be mandated.
A lot of the remote work I’ve seen involves remote access to a virtual desktop or some such. This means the data stays on the employer’s premises, only keyboard and screen (and perhaps printing) go back and forth. Alternatively, the employer provides the computer, and includes the firewall, antivirus, and VPN program to isolate the computer and contents from the home network. After all, the assumption that home networks are more secure than Starbucks wifi can be laughable.