Here is the jist. They can fire you for not going to the office, but they have to fire everybody else who doesn’t go, else there they (the employee) can argue discrimination. And if we are taking a few hundreds of lawsuits, plus all the union movement they are having…
So it’s better to “gently” let the people know they are not welcomed and motivate them to go.
Tl;Dr: Apes, together, strong.
barfplanet@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Do you have experience with employment law?
An employee could argue discrimination, but they’d have to have evidence that it was due to a protected class to have any success, and those cases are notoriously hard to prove. In every state that I’m aware of, they can fire people selectively for not coming into the office, while keeping others employed.
Railcar8095@lemm.ee 10 months ago
It will be up to the judge on each case to decide, I’m sure that we could see different rulings for very similar cases.
Ultimately wether they win or lose they don’t want to stir the flames, else they would have already done what you said. If it was so black and white, the penalty wouldn’t be “blocking promotions”.
barfplanet@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Sure, Amazon doesn’t want hundreds of extra lawsuits, but the staff also don’t want to waste their money on legal fees for a suit that’s a guaranteed loss. Case law is very well-established.
What’s with the assumption that it’s the law that is keeping Amazon from mass-firing staff who won’t come in?
The approach they’re taking is just a smart business decision. It allows them to spread the disruptions out so they’re more manageable, to keep employees who’s skills justify flexibility in the WFH rules, and prevents the PR impact of a mass termination.