I get "at-will employment" and all, but there really should be penalties for companies and executives who assure staff in writing that they will be permanently remote – leading them to make major life decisions like moving and buying houses – then turn around a few months later and go "just kidding come back to the office".
There's an argument to be made that this is a constructive dismissal, and would thus qualify for any benefits that a termination would entail, but I'm sure that type of legal wrangling is not what the people at Schwab will want to deal with.
If it were me, I would simply continue working from home until my access and/or paycheck were cut off.
I'm pretty sure that every RTO I've seen was limited to people who have an office within a certain distance. That said, being remote while everyone else is in an office together is a lot worse than being remote when everyone is remote.
Breaking a contract usually incurs some sort of penalty.
Courts may enforce contracts and may be government entities, but calling it "government overreach" misrepresents their role to an extent that is just plain silly.
Comments
I get "at-will employment" and all, but there really should be penalties for companies and executives who assure staff in writing that they will be permanently remote – leading them to make major life decisions like moving and buying houses – then turn around a few months later and go "just kidding come back to the office".
There's an argument to be made that this is a constructive dismissal, and would thus qualify for any benefits that a termination would entail, but I'm sure that type of legal wrangling is not what the people at Schwab will want to deal with.
If it were me, I would simply continue working from home until my access and/or paycheck were cut off.
I'm pretty sure that every RTO I've seen was limited to people who have an office within a certain distance. That said, being remote while everyone else is in an office together is a lot worse than being remote when everyone is remote.
Let's face it. If there were any risk of penalties then employers would never have agreed to any permanent hybrid, WFH etc.
Which would have been better for everyone involved
That is called an employment contract. And no there should not be penalties. Thats asking for Govt overreach. No thanks.
A contract that can be amended at any time by the party with more power isn't really a contract.
Breaking a contract usually incurs some sort of penalty.
Courts may enforce contracts and may be government entities, but calling it "government overreach" misrepresents their role to an extent that is just plain silly.