How much time are people given to move once they have official communication? Is it 6 months? Since people are having to move on their own dime , can't a lawsuit be filed. 6 months seems unrealistic expectation without assistance.
19 replies (most recent on top)
I hate how they just say “follow the work or not. We aren’t forcing you” when I enjoy my job and I would probably move if I had assistance. But I literally can’t afford to. They are forcing me to quit if they ask me to move to Dallas.
Post from TheLayoff.com You don't make decisions on potential expectations...you make decisions based on what's actually happening
the law of human decency
I don't think we have that one on the books, unfortunately. Plus, these large corporations have none. I got a job at a much smaller company, where I can call the owner anytime I want (not that I need to often, but the owner is very approachable and is just a phone call away, as well as anyone else in the company). It's a very different feeling when you're actually being treated like a human being, and not just a number on a spreadsheet.
Be a leader and not a follower. Hire an attorney and sue T.
"which law is being violated?"
the law of human decency
People really need to differentiate between RTO and follow the work. I have embraced the RTO to a ATT designated hub. However, now ATT is saying I have to follow the work to a different hub. Two different issues.
which law is being violated?
I had two months from accepting to working in new city. People have had plenty of time to decide (this time). It doesn't make the decision any less agonizing.
A friend of mine had less than a day (just recently, within the last month). They basically told him in the morning he has to decide, and said they needed an answer by the end of the day. To be fair, it could be argued that this wasn't a secret, and those of us outside of hubs have known this was coming since at least last May.
Similarly with laying off employees over 50. They will sprinkle them in with 30-40-year-olds too in each location.
Maybe a joke... maybe not, but I might have been one of those 30 something year olds that got laid off just to avoid any claims by 3 more people from our team that got laid off at the same time. They were all older, and my age brought the average down. They even gave us a doc that explained how the average age of people laid off from our team proved it wasn't Age Discrimination. This part if not a joke.
(AT&T also acted unethically by disclosing everyone's age to others. Not that we cared, and they tried to be smooth by not including names, but they printed everyone's age and job level, which instantly identified us to each other. It's just age, and we worked together for a long time, it's nothing, yet it still kind of feels like it wasn't AT&T place to make this information public.)
Expectations for moving have been known for over a year now. If not moving, it’s time for you to move on.
What would you sue them for? That's an honest question.
“ Don’t want to move?
Quit!
AT&T owes you nothing. You don’t like it leave!”
Completely accurate statement, but could have done without the exclamation marks…
I had two months from accepting to working in new city. People have had plenty of time to decide (this time). It doesn't make the decision any less agonizing.
I am no defender of current leadership or their policies.
That said, we have so many maroons still here who use this word "lawsuit" and clearly have no point of reference nor apparently any idea what it means.
Google "at will employment", The company can actually basically terminate your employment at any time, for any reason...as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's gender, s-xual orientation, race, religion, age or disability status).
You don't have any (zero, zip, nada) grounds for a lawsuit because in your eyes the company did not afford you enough time to move.
Educate yourself, just a little. Because you sound foolish.
Fortunately, a lawsuit will go nowhere, you litigious varment.
Lmao. A lawsuit?? For sure that will work.
I was surplus'd in the early 2019 wave, before all this RTO, etc., happened, but the reason given out of the blue was that I wasn't near enough to an approved collaboration zone site (of course now there are many fewer). At the time, people were asking if they could - on their own dime, relocate themselves to keep their jobs, and HR told them 'No'. So it was obvious at the time it wasn't about the exact location. Just as it isn't today.
I would say before the company does any of these ideas, they fully run it past a team of lawyers to make sure there are no legal claims that can be brought against the company, or, that if there are, they are sure that the company can outlast any with their team of lawyers.
It's just like with all the massive layoff waves, what's that law, the WARN Act - where a company has to report over a certain number of layoffs in a location? Well, they just have a few under that number and lay off across the country, so it doesn't make the mainline news, maybe there's a blurb about it at the end of the year, but not much attention. Similarly with laying off employees over 50. They will sprinkle them in with 30-40-year-olds too in each location.
They really do have their game down about layoffs...
I’ve been surplused 5 times where I was forced to move and each time I was told about 2 weeks before where I was actually moving to. Once they told me where I was bumping to, I was given 3 move days off for an exploratory trip to find a new place to stay in that city. Although I think RTO is complete nonsense just like everyone else, I would have liked to have that much extra time to find a place.
It's called work expectations. No laws for just being a bad employer.