However if the company hired them for work at home, the workers may have a case. But if both the worker and/or company can terminate employment at will, there should not be a case.
[[. They were hired for office work]]
Exactly! Who gives a rip if the workers don’t want to go back- fire em and hire office workers Instead if they refuse.
Hope the co panties don’t cave in like the universities are and capitulate to the demands of the workers. The workers do not run the company, the boss does, and when the boss says back to work, that’s it- either go back to work of find another job
I think this topic is one where the words “new normal” are actually appropriate.
But the reality is that with today's technology there is no reason to be in the office 5 days a week. Sure the employer can require it but in today's world there are plenty of companies that permit remote work or at the very least a hybrid. If my company was insistent on this, I'd find another company to work for.
Employers must either adapt or be prepared to lose employees; even "valuable" employees.
but the people who were not really important nor essential got to stay home, most not working, just getting paid, and now the companies want them in the office and the poor liddle dears are just too sick and lazy to do it.....
Exactly. If they want a stay-at-home job they should look for one. Not take a at-work job and then try to turn it into working at home because of whatever. You got hired as an at-work employee; if you don’t want that find another job.
Suddenly every office worker thinks they are a wounded combat veteran. “I have PTSD from having my red stapler taken away”.
Belval’s wish to work from home sounds reasonable, with his health, if he has a good or supreme work record.
There are 3 cases:
1. Those who were hired to work remotely and have it in their contracts
2. Those who were hired to work partially in the office
3. Those who were hired to work in the office but that changed and there was an addendum signed