[wrfrmers]

When I took the job, I trusted my employers' word that the role's tasks required being in-person, against my own suspicions. That, combined with no other prospects, meant either I took the potentially raw deal or face destitution.

Now, I've had worse jobs, but that doesn't mean it's right that this one is arranged the way that it is. Not for me or for the business.

You're saying that no one has standing to criticize a deleterious deal after someone has taken it, and I have to reject that. It's the kind of attitude that excuses all kinds of exploitation because "you knew what you were getting into." In reality, you have people forced into definitively bad situations to avoid potentially worse ones, or ambiguity regarding the conditions that doesn't resolve itself until they're in the thick of it.

Go back to basics: if an employer is made aware that their work conditions are unreasonable, they should strive to make them reasonable, even if they have leeway not to because of a prior agreement. That's just an ethical reality. Such conscientiousness also engenders loyalty and trust; tapping the employment contract instead is why workers are happy to serve out their "term" and then quiet quit or actually quit.