[macinjosh]

I am curious where this is coming from because TFA implies that this policy applies to people who were hired remote. What is the actual distinction between those who have to RTO and those that do not?

> Many employees accepted offers from Amazon with the understanding that their position will be full remote.

[notyourwork]

Some employees hired during covid were explicitly classified as virtual. Some were given a location and said you don't have to come to office but if you did have an office it would be in <city>.

It's made very clear when hired so anyone saying otherwise missed a subtle detail.

[Sebb767]

> It's made very clear when hired so anyone saying otherwise missed a subtle detail.

That's an oxymoron, either it was made very clear or it was subtle and therefore not very clear at all.

[notyourwork]

Employees were hired with a specific location or they weren't. There isn't an in-between. However, employees during covid were also hired and told to remain out of office until guidance changes.

Some chose to interpret that as WFH forever, some chose to buy homes hours away from their assigned office location. Now some are acting confused and feel slighted when in reality, they ignored or conflated the hiring and the WFH-covid guidance into a single thing.

[macinjosh]

Thank you for this much needed clarification.

[dcow]

Not really. People also willingly overlook things hoping for a different reality. It’s a pretty human thing to do.

[Sebb767]

Yes, but that's not the point I was arguing with. Either it was made very clear (and people choose to overlook it despite it being hard to miss) or it was a subtle detail (that people easily missed, quite possibly unintentionally). Both can't be true at the same time.

[Shish2k]

> Yes, but that's not the point I was arguing with

I believe the commenter you’re replying to is willingly overlooking things hoping for a different reality. It’s a pretty human thing to do ;)

[shmatt]

Gergely Orosz is a hack. He can show a scan of a contract with personal information redacted if he'd like to. He creates "facts" by using vague words like that

Employees either had a remote contract or they didn't. Their income taxes were paid accordingly. This really isn't or shouldn't be a surprise to anyone

[RC_ITR]

>with the understanding

If you want something to be true, get it in writing.

'Yeah, we're technically based in Seattle, but everyone is working from home anyway' is not a legal contract.

Sucks and the employees aren't to blame, just warning anyone else out there.

[macinjosh]

Ah ok, so I have an extended family member who was hired by AWS during the pandemic. This person was explicitly hired as remote so I assume that they do not have to RTO since it is in writing. I can’t really ask them for complicated family reasons also seems kinda rude to just ask haha. But I have been curious. I am glad to know they won’t have to move across the country again.

[JohnFen]

This can't be overstated.

If it's not in writing, it doesn't exist. What you were told verbally means nothing. (Yes, technically a verbal contract is a binding contract, but if you can't prove in court that something was said, it doesn't matter.)

I assume that remote workers had an employment contract, though, and surely where and when they are expected to work was included in that.