[nickff]

This seems correct.

It looks like the employer interpreted the message as a type of ultimatum. In the face of such an ultimatum, they basically have no choice but to treat it as a resignation.

The ultimatum is a very dangerous negotiating tactic, and generally harmful to long-term relationships. As an example, I recommend against posing an ultimatum to a spouse or partner.

[pmiller2]

No, they also have the choice to implement proper safety measures. You sound as if you believe the employer is entitled to abuse every bit of power they have over an employee.

Edit: speaking of "ultimatums," what do you call a strike? Is it only an "ultimatum" (thus unacceptable) when one person does it, but not when a large group does it?

[nickff]

The problem is not the legitimacy of the issue; the problem is the approach. Grandparent comment said: "I sent an email that I was leaving and would not be returning for at least two weeks and pending further info about any spread."

If they had said that they have concerns about safety, and requested an urgent (possibly remote) discussion, the employer would have more options. By telling the employer that they were leaving immediately, and not coming back until they felt something had changed, they force an immediate decision of either treating it as a resignation, or accepting and condoning unilateral actions by employees.

Strikes are definitely ultimatums, though they generally have clearer objectives, and are usually preceded by a series of discussions. Strikes are not conducive to good relationships.

[romwell]

I think you missed the part where the employee was notified of a coronavirus case on their floor by an email they could only read at work.

Read this again, and comprehend that the HR unilaterally and knowingly subjected them to risk of contacting the virus.

Subsequent self-quarantine at home benefits the company as it reduces the chances of spread. It was the right thing to do, and there's not much to negotiate here given the initial screw-up.

[nickff]

You are looking at this issue from a moral/ethical lens, while I am looking at it from a game theory perspective.

I am not making a judgement as to who is at fault for the situation. I am only stating that the decisive move was the grandparent's e-mail, which left the employer only one rational option (that I know of).

[pmiller2]

You seem to be making an argument for unionization in the tech industry, then.

[romwell]

The rational option is to grant the employee a (possibly unpaid) leave in such circumstances.

What does Samsung stand to gain from this? They lost an employee (which will cost them in recruiting when they open up again) and gained bad reputation (and a disgruntled former employee).

This is power play that hurts everyone.

[pmiller2]

> Strikes are definitely ultimatums, though they generally have clearer objectives, and are usually preceded by a series of discussions. Strikes are not conducive to good relationships.

You do know that frequently the only reason these "discussions" are able to be had is because of the threat of a strike? What if the GP had these "discussions" and was told to go back to their desk and STFU? Then what?

Strikes are actually the result of employers abusing employees, which is what creates the bad relationships. You sound as though you believe the other way around, that strikes create bad relationships.

[kitotik]

This comes off as pretty heavy victim-blaming bootlicking.

Do you see an alternative way the corporation could have handled this that would at least given the impression they valued the lives of their labor force?

[nickff]

In this specific situation, I think the grandparent left their employer with no options after the "email that I was leaving and would not be returning for at least two weeks and pending further info about any spread". Putting this in an e-mail really forces the employer's hand. Remember that the manager does not know who is being BCCed on the conversation, and must assume the worst (that everyone the employee knows is on a BCC list). Given that state of affairs, I think any competent HR department would insist on treating the e-mail as a resignation.

Imagine someone gets up at their desk, and yells out: "I am leaving, and not coming back until you agree to my terms". That is the (assumed) situation here, and leaves management with almost no options.

[kitotik]

If there was an active shooter in the building and the email was “yo, I’m leaving for the rest of day and not coming back until I have more info on the active shooter situation” does the corporation have any option other than to immediately terminate that employee?

[nickff]

In that situation, the employee is saying they will do something that the employer likely wants them to do, or is at most indifferent to. It would be more similar to someone sending an e-mail to their boss saying 'I am coming in to work on Monday, and planning to work very hard, because I fully support the management'.

[atq2119]

Yes, they have the option of providing more info on the active shooter situation.

[cortesoft]

Doesn't sound like he gave an ultimatum... he said he wasn't going to come into the office for two weeks, he didn't say UNLESS the company did something... there was no demand, and a demand is required for an ultimatum.

[nickff]

The definition of an ultimatum is: 'a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations.'

I read "sent an email that I was leaving and would not be returning for at least two weeks and pending further info about any spread" as such an ultimatum. It is a final statement, the rejection of which will result in a breakdown of relations.