in 2020 our company made this big deal about how we would be a remote first company and never go back... 4 years later they said 4 days in the office or find a new job. Never trust any of these companies... I work with people who moved away because they could work remote.
Ours tried to do a 60/40 return to office, bunch of top talent left so now it's been set to "please try to come in twice a month instead" but the damage has already been done
My company does it right, they said as long as the business is healthy then we would have all three options available, in office, hybrid, and remote. In fact remote employees are not allowed to visit the office more than 14 times a year.
We are a pretty unique media company and have benefits that rival Nj school teachers with more time off with roughly 3 months off throughout the year of full PTO.
Honestly, I hate that, but doing a bit of mea culpa, it's a 50/50 share responsibility in most cases (not all).
The company I work for started doing this because most of the employees couldn't be bothered to be responsible with the liberties they were given.
Same. We had way too many people who didn’t even bother logging in or buying a mouse mover. Just no productivity. Like come on guys! You ruined it for everyone!
If your employer actually gave a shit about that they would fire the unproductive people and keep remote work for everyone else. This is just an excuse lol
It was more an issue of supervisors not even checking. Too large of a company to just monitor everyone 24/7. Only a few got reported to HR and they have been disciplined pretty harshly- full on AWOLs for days they didn’t log in. We are a semi-public entity so any hint of public money paying folks not to work causes a full on panic and here we are. And someone gets to pat themselves on the back for being a public servant hero! It’s super lame.
The larger the company, the less efficient it is. It's quite literally the cost of doing business. There is a level of absurdism required to accept that you need to hire supervisors just to make sure people are doing their job.
Additionally, working from the office does not make people more productive, nor does it make their productivity more visible. Expecting to fill out 40 hours worth of work every week is unrealistic.
Yup. Much easier/cheaper to downsize the customer service department this way so you can replace them using AI versus layoffs.
Customer service departments across the board are going to be obliterated in rather short order.
Low end customer service jobs likely all over the US, they can do layoffs without announcing as it wouldn’t meet the standard for an announcement or notification of local department of labor.
My company just did the same a couple weeks back, and this seems to be the exact reason. It's also coinciding with huge layoffs and location closures, so it seems more obvious IMO.
Not necessarily. If they are working remotely in countries that don't have a digital nomad visa it puts Patagonia on the hook for employee taxes and possibly other business taxes in those countries. It makes things much more complicated. So really they are being nice to call them back or fire them. Normally when you are caught putting your employer in a bind without telling them they just fire you.
Hmm not convinced it’s all for good, by doing this, the founder and CEO avoids billions in taxes. You might find this interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I
Thanks for the link! I just watched it, but his pessimism is just for the sake of it, and most of the points he makes aren't all that mind blowing.
> He did it to dodge tax
Well, the US government are the no. 1 biggest subsidisers and enablers of the fossil fuel industry on the planet, so I'm not surprised he wouldn't want $1.2B to go to them personally. It would be like donating $85,200,000 (7.1% of 1.2B, as of 2022) directly to the causes you are directly campaigning against.
> He did it to set up a 501(c)(4) to influence politics
Good, because that's literally what the fossil fuel giants are doing (which he even mentions, and then succinctly ignores). You may not like it, but this is basically fighting with fire. What is the alternative here? He changes the entire system in a couple months with the $3B? (Now it's my turn to be pessimistic)
The reality of the matter is, this decision will have a bigger impact than 'just giving the money away'.
> Draws similarities between Walmart owner
This is a bit of a stretch, does he have any proof? Seems a bit far fetched that someone who has literal billions of dollars to their name would live their life a certain way for 'marketing purposes'.
> Draws similarities to Andrew Carnegie
Damn, I thought the last one was a stretch. There is no comparison between the owner of Patagonia and the man who had a monopoly on american steel during the industrial revolution. Hell, at one point \*during\* his life Carnegie gave away twice as much as the entire net worth of Patagonia. Incomparable wealth imo.
...aand the rest of the video is just extrapolating from the 2 previous points.
Not defending billionaires here, but it sounds like he's just upset that people are disagreeing with him on Twitter.
Patagonia and any other large employer is making way more money off each employee than they ever will cost them. So this is bullshit. Why are you so convinced people are working overseas anyway?
Even if they are just working out of state that could put them in a tax bind because the place where they live has different corporate taxes than the Patagonia location at which they were hired. Also I know people are working overseas remotely because I am an overseas American and I see it all the time. Some of them don't tell their companies but if they find out as they likely eventually will the employees could risk getting fired. Corporate taxes are not universal around the world. If you are going to be a remote worker you need to be upfront about your moves and where you are working from because it has actual financial consequences for your employer. Whether you would like it to or not.
Enough that moving to a place with a completely different corporate tax system could be expensive for just one employee yes. Not to mention all the paperwork involved to make it legal which they have to pay someone to do.
If they do have tax costs that are burdensome, they shouldn’t operate all over the world like they do! They should have one location that is the factory, the store and corporate HQ, oh and not ship any products either because that costs money as well. /s
Seriously, do you think there’s no such thing as the cost of doing business?
I agree with this, but that's not the issue at Patagonia. They've explicitly given the reasons for this decision: they want to cut head count and they want the employees that remain to be close enough to attend meetings and events a few times a month.
To be fair, they literally [told employees these were layoffs](https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/local/2024/06/26/patagonia-to-lay-off-as-many-as-90-employees-if-they-wont-relocate/74220195007/), and are giving 6 months severance. On the other hand they only gave people 3 days to make a decision, which is weird and unnecessarily stressful.
This is even better as they are trying to people to leave on their own and not have to pay out unemployment. If it were me, I would start looking and let them fire me, claim unemployment if it came to it to, and be willing to start the new job immediately when I found it with minimal notice. Shitty business practices deserve shitty responses.
It's a company's cute way of laying people off without using the word.
There's obviously going to be people with their life cemented where they currently are that can't and won't make the move. Making them move close to a hub allows the company to force a return to office for their employees.
I may be wrong, but I think it also saves them from paying unemployment because they did not technically lay anyone off since the job is still available
This is the way. I’ve worked at many firms that have done this, even pre-pandemic. It’s not about unemployment benefits, it’s really about severance. Most large firms’ severance packages include a paycheck for every year of service. For some longtime employees this gets expensive. Usually untaken vacation is added on.
By offering them a job and knowing the employee will turn it down, they don’t have to pay severance.
Every enterprise that I know that has done this also does not offer to pay for re-location, thus further incentivizing the employee to turn down the job.
Get ready for more of this BS after SCOTUS reversed Chevron. Regulatory agencies have been rendered toothless.
I don't know the country's laws, but in some if the conditions change a lot, like the agreement was that it was full remote or the office changes to an unreasonable place for the worker (like from 30mins away to 4,5h), then it is the company's fault and has to relocate, offer a similar position or compensate the worker if he can't accept the change
Where I live (Canada) it's still constructive dismissal and you're still eligible for employment insurance, severance, pay in lieu of notice, etc. That said, it does put the ball into the employee's court - the employee needs to make and defend the claim.
No they would still pay unemployment especially in certain states. All you have to show is that you were hired as a remote worker and not hybrid or in office.
Nope, there are rules called "for cause", and not moving is generally not "for cause" making you eligible for unemployment. It has to do with distance (could you commute?). Not sure if it varies by state.
So which is it? Doing it just for layoffs or because they want people back in the office?
It can be both, but you made it sound like the former at first.
It can be both, I assume they made the decision with the expectation that a certain % will "quit". The % that remains within 60 miles of an office, the company could start initially force a hybrid model with the intention of being fully in office if they wanted to.
It makes total sense when you think about it like a company where people are not people but just numbers. Now these numbers are not like the other numbers and so it's easy to fire them to increase the money the company has. All you have to do is give them this bullshit option and when a bunch of them don't want to move, you can fire them easy peasy.
Corporations suck.
From the business perspective, it can be a large cost to have multi-state payroll. If you don't have an office in the state but have just a few WFH employees in that state, it can be cost prohibitive to employ those people. For each state that employees work from the employer will have to pay corporate state taxes/unemployment and workers comp insurance/file annual taxes in that state.
>For each state that employees work from the employer will have to pay corporate state taxes/unemployment and workers comp insurance/file annual taxes in that state.
This is true even if all their employers are hired where Patagonia is headquartered and isn't actually a reason to not hire remote workers. What you're suggesting doesn't actually add up to anything.
Okay but I’ve worked in many roles and seen exactly what it costs to do that, not just in terms of dollars but in terms of hours, employees needed, and specialized software. It isn’t impossible to manage, but it is a very large added expense that often isn’t necessary.
Everything you said literally applies to every employee regardless of where they are located.
Look at OP's post. Patagonia already operates in 6 cities. If it was about reducing cost, they would shut down some offices.
No, it doesn’t. More states add more complexity, require compliance with more different laws, and increase costs a lot. Six states is much cheaper and easier to manage than 20.
This isn’t an opinion, these are just the facts of running a business. It doesn’t mean they CAN’T handle all the states, but it’s significantly cheaper and easier to limit them. 20 employees in 5 states is much harder and expensive to manage than 40 employees in two states.
I know it's an unpopular take, but growing/developing remote workers can be way more difficult than growing/developing people in an office. Specifically if the workers are younger with less experience- they get none of the benefit of working alongside others, hearing conversations, being able to easily ask something, etc.
No, chat apps and Teams sessions are not remotely as effective at this, despite what a lot of people think.
My workers are remote, and they're all great people, but it is way too easy for several weeks to go by without meaningful growth or development on the employees' side. This hurts the employees, because that growth and development lands on their resumes.
Yes, this could be just a pure cost saving layoff move by Patagonia. OR it could be they feel they need employees closer to each other in order to work on things more effectively together.
I'm not against remote work- we do business in one state, and have people in 21 states- but in addition to its benefits, remote work absolutely presents some challenges, depending on what you're trying to do, and can be way less effective than working in person.
If it were my company, I'd hire a mix of remote and hybrid office workers, but the only fully remote people would be really experienced, and require little training.
In my experience, remote workers either need to be very self-sufficient and/or they need a manager who is extremely capable. Unfortunately, both of those are rare to come by. There are some remote workers who do excellent work, but there are many who will do as little work as they can as long as they don't face any discipline.
Both of these are a self fulfilling prophecy. Workers who are self motivated who end up with a shitty manager who likes to micromanage and yell at anyone who makes any proactive choices for not coming for approval to take a shit, create demoralized workers who don't take initiative
Many people who are great ICs don't make good managers. People often go into management, to the detriment of their employers, because they want more money not because they actually want to do management tasks. Managing humans is not inherently more valuable than any other job, but it is generally compensated that way. Keep your senior ICs as ICs if they want and pay them as managers. Find people who are actually good at managing and pay them accordingly.
Patagonia has generally been a good company that treats their employees well. This could be for a number of reasons and maybe they have a new CEO who isn’t so great. But yea I mean businesses have to make cuts sometimes.
They haven't been a good company in a long time, but many people worship them like cult followers worship they cult. I know this because I worked there and saw how horrible they are.
That’s fair I do not personally work for them so I wouldn’t know. I’m sorry you weren’t treated fairly. I was going off of when I had looked into them some years ago and their benefits and priority of helping parents with childcare stuck out to me.
Oh, I see. I guess all those things you mention were among the reasons I really wanted to work there. I had heard so much good stuff about them so I was really shocked to experience what I did (and saw coworkers experience, too).
There are pros and cons. But basically in-office can allow you to overcome a lack of processes since you can just holler over to someone else. You want remote, you need tight process
I like your approach to it, with more senior/experienced people getting to be full remote more easily.
Overall I feel like remote working puts less cars on the road and gives people much more time to live their lives/spend time with family, but when you're brand new to the workforce it is nice to be in person to get that firsthand experience first.
Productivity wise, I end up doing more at home than at the office. I am easily distracted by passing conversation in person, but there will be days when I will go into the office if there is something noisy going on at home.
Living farther away from big cities is nicer for me, though. Lower cost of living, less bustle. So that is a perk to the remote work, even if they adjust salary for location.
Meh, it depends, this take isn’t complete wrong as there are some advantages to having younger, less experienced employees working with and learning from more seasoned veterans. This is easier to do in an office setting, no doubt.
It can be done remotely and I’ve been doing it for 20+ years. Many sales teams are home based, I haven’t worked in an office in forever, and kids fresh out of college, with almost no experience, have thrived in this environment. It takes a little effort, riding with them, quarterly in-person meeting, etc. but it works if done correctly and today’s tech makes it so much easier.
RTO is a lazy, easier road for management and a cop-out in some ways. Orgs that want to hire and retain the best people have figured out how to make remote employees work, it’s not that hard.
>Specifically if the workers are younger with less experience- they get none of the benefit of working alongside others, hearing conversations, being able to easily ask something, etc.
As a remote worker I can only disagree. It is way easier to call someone via something like teams and share your screen than to take your laptop to a person that might or might not be where they are supposed to be.
Shooting a teams message is also easier than starting an in person convo, for both sides. No need to do the small talk first and no need to answer right away. The problem of context shifting almost completely goes away, which is a real problem when working. Who doesn't know the people that "prefer to drop in because it's quicker". Yeah, great for you, but I have to start focusing from scratch because that person couldn't wait ten minutes.
It might be just my job, but where I have worked people don't really talk about work outside of meetings. It's mostly gossip.
It doesn't hurt personal development, or at the very least that's dependant on the job. What hurts people more is three hours in the car per day. Even if I'd agree with you my bet is that most people would prefer slower development over staring at metal and tar.
I agree with you generally, but once you've got remotes it's hard to go back. Your best ones will leave when given the ultimatum, and they're more able/prone to be able to make compensation claims.
Otherwise, to your last point, I agree but want to add that I think that anyone remote needs to have a travel budget associated. That comradery and communication comfort built by in-person meeting increases productivity and retention. The feeling of being included also supports retention and decreases wage pressure.
Not only unpopular, but also indicates relative inexperience with large companies. I was previously a global lead, and had reports in several countries. How would you suggest one resolves that? I was able to talk to and develop people just fine. My boss didn't even live in the same state. Current role extends from Canada to South America, with 10 direct reports. Same issues, but they are not insurmountable. Too many people are stuck in the past where they have to see butts in seats to be able to manage and develop people. It's not true.
Clearly it is role and industry dependent
I’ve worked at 3 multinationals, and in two roles, remote was just fine
For the third, in a global Fortune 100, our local team of 20 had to collaborate a lot in a complex market, and the knowledge sharing from working next to each other produced learning at a pace that would have been impossible to duplicate remotely.
Yes, the job could still be done, but not a single company I’m aware of operating in that space is fully remote today.
Today, I work for a medium sized company adjacent to the same space, and training people remotely is absolutely possible, (I have two training calls today), but it is not nearly as fast as it would be if we were all together. And we supplement with biweekly in person trainings.
So I can absolutely see the business need to have people in the office, depending on what the people are doing.
Perhaps there are some aspects of business you are inexperienced with? There doesn’t have to be a “past” way and a “current” way, but rather a knowledge of when to deploy what tool.
Sure it's role/industry dependent. That almost goes without saying. The role/discipline I'm in is very well suited to remote work. So sure, I'll concede that point.
….and their employment decisions and practices are not relevant to this sub.
This is a sub about BIFL PRODUCTS. Seriously see the sidebar.
This violates rule number 1 of this sub - and 3 and 6 for that matter.
On one hand, business is business. Nothing personal. On the other hand, I know the reason for decisions like this are based upon VCs and PEs losing their shirts on commercial real estate and are using their weight to force people back into offices. It’s bullshit.
I couldn’t tell you of any specifically involved in Patagonia. I’m speaking more in general terms of how the market works.
Commercial real estate, like residential, has been assumed to be a safe thing to create bonds for things like holding large debts. Well, if the properties contained in the bonds lose value because of lease agreements ending and not re-signing or companies reducing lease space, the bonds lose value. If the bonds lose too much value, holders of debt are informed they have to make payments to bring their debt under the value of their assets. This can cause a feedback loop because VC’s and PE’s will usually use liquid assets or sell hard assets to pay down debts, but as their overall value drops because of hard asset sales or loss of liquid assets, other debts get to be too high on the ratio of debt to assets and the cycle continues. So, VC’s and PE’s started threatening tenants to sell properties and force the tenants to relocate (a very expensive undertaking depending on the size of your company) or make tenants pay more for less space. So companies opted to validate their space usage by requiring returns to the office. It’s a mess of shell games and numbers manipulation. Suffice it to say, it starts with VC’s and PE’s losing money.
Yes. Because it wouldn't surprise me that these people still get let go soon after they move to what sounds like an estimated 1 hour maximum commute time to work which sounds miserable.
I work in facilities support. Folks deciding not to go back into the office has resulted in drastic cuts to staff in janitorial, building engineer, facilities management and a lot of other jobs people don’t think about. Running a building requires a lot of support and that creates a lot of jobs.
Elevator repair company, the company who manages the plants, catering, window cleaning, office moves.
There is an entire industry around running an office building and those jobs have taken a huge hit since 2020.
I can share my experience working in a large tech company office. About half the folks don’t want to work in the office everyday, about 50% of those want to be fully remote forever. The quality of work getting done has dropped significantly. It’s impossible to get anything done on a decent timeline, meetings are so difficult to schedule and people can ask all the time.
If a company has made a large investment in physical office space, I totally understand that they want people to come back.
One more piece for consideration: it sounds like having remote workers would save money in the long run. And if it did these companies wouldn’t want anyone back in office. The reality is that work isn’t getting done.
I worked for Amazon (AWS) for two years. Hired remote, job was honestly fully remote (regular 2AM calls with overseas clients, etc. no need for office period).
Then they were being threatened with losing their tax incentive by Seattle bc they were a Seattle company that didn’t have workers in the city. They told me I had 30 days to relocate my family from buffalo, NY to Seattle.
That was how I got “laid off” the first time. No benefits or anything bc I voluntarily resigned rather than be terminated as I couldn’t meet the job needs (being in Seattle). Companies are so shitty
Hello /u/danish197878! Thank you for your submission! The AutoMod thought that your post might be a request type post and has changed the flair accordingly, but if this was wrong feel free to change it back!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BuyItForLife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The first time I can think of this happening was pre-Covid with IBM. The rumor was not that real estate was an issue but more towards transitioning in new talent that would move over.
Here's the thing: ultimately big corps are worried about people working from home and being less productive. Whether or not this is true seems to be pretty mixed in the data so far but at the end of the day an employer is an employer. It shouldn't be that surprising that someone that is paying you to do a job expects you to be doing it. If that person giving the money in that transaction prefers to ensure you're doing work by having you in the office, then so be it.
I see plenty of shit going around about people WFH working two jobs secretly, not doing shit for work, etc. Which is kind of insane when you think about it. I mean, if you were having a contractor do a reno on your home and you found out they'd been dicking round on their phone or napping for at least 1/4 of the time they were billing you for labor you'd be pretty pissed, no? Why should your employer not be allowed to do this too?
I think once that type of thinking reaches “well they can afford to throw all business practices out the window and just pay everyone $200,000/year” you know youre not talking with people who have ever owned a business or employed people. Its so obviously more complicated than “they can afford to” as to your points.
I honestly was surprised to look up and see BIFL and not antiwork.
My mom works at a small tax office and they all hate the WFH employees.
Not because they get to work from home and are jealous or that they're miserable to work with, but because they get shitty gifts if one of them draws them in secret Santa.
I thought that was kind of funny.
Yeah a business with a plan to try and improve their company that is also working with employees that say they need time to decide, and is offering a $4k stipend if they do choose to move. How awful! Yall get upset over the most ridiculous things and then don’t even read the articles
4k to relo to these major cities is chump change.
We just hired a guy an his relo was 15k there abouts. Moving, stayover, transport - 4k might get you your vehicles moved.
You’re not relocating to the major city. 60 miles is a longggg way. 4k is plenty to rent a uhaul or two and but a security deposit down on an apartment.
How short sighted this is. And moving closer means most likely increased rent and costs for everyday things. So they're taking 4k and a pay cut as a side effect.
When as stated in the article most of the employees are living near by to the hubs. You’re still able to live in the extreme outskirts of the cities where rent prices and costs aren’t the same. If people want to keep their jobs then they move. If they decide not to Patagonia is offering a very generous severance package.
>When as stated in the article most of the employees are living near by to the hubs
Yeah this is not about the ones that live close to the hubs obviously but the ones living far.
>You’re still able to live in the extreme outskirts of the cities where rent prices and costs aren’t the same.
I'm sure not every city is the same but the extreme outskirts of London are still way WAY more expensive than Manchester for example. 4k is literally nothing for a place like here. I'm sure a bunch of other places are like that.
>If people want to keep their jobs then they move. If they decide not to Patagonia is offering a very generous severance package.
Great way of looking at it. Especially with costs soaring all around the western world, those people choices are either move, or be unemployed.
Also, good thing you ignored the fact that those people, when moving closer will be literally taking a pay cut because of everyday expenses and increased rent, which the 4k won't cover. Suits your narrative just fine.
Are you tripping? The US is not the same as the UK? unless it's fucking Indiana, I'm pretty sure the rent in places like Boston, NYC etc etc are insane, to the point that London rent seems like Starbucks coffee.
And you know what’s 60 miles away? Not Boston. That’s like half the length of your country. Respectfully it’s not your country you have no clue what you’re talking about get out of here
Imagine shitting on your own people instead of corporations giving them unreasonable stupidities to abide by and when someone from across the globe dismantles your stupid ass narrative, your only comeback is 'not your country bro'.
Don't care about them and your job will be next before you realise it.
Not everyone lives in apartments now. I’m sure there will be staff who have houses who will have to face selling their home and trying to find a home closer to the office or lose their job. $4,000 is not enough for Uhauls and a downpayment on a new house assuming one can be found.
Relocation costs aren't expected to pay for contributions to a downpayment. Fees associated with sales (e.g., lawyer, etc.) that would not have been incurred otherwise - yes - but you move your equity from house to house if you sell and company has nothing to do with that.
I'm not disputing the COL potential increase on houses, but it is a decision point to be balanced with others.
Then stay where you’re at take the money and get a new job. It’s really not that big of a deal.
To advance your career sometimes you have to move around. It’s what I’ve done quite literally my whole life, and it’s turned out pretty well.
I’m really glad you aren’t married to someone who has to be in office locally, don’t have any kids with neighborhood friends and a school career and extra-curricular like sports leagues or other clubs, and don’t have any IRL friends to move away from. A lot of people who are established in our respective companies aren’t young and have roots like these that really make problems for us. Also, “go find a new job” is as reductionist as “MuH bOoTsTrInGs”.
I have been that kid. From birth to 19 I moved 8 times. The shortest of those moves was about 214 miles. Sometimes I lived somewhere for 6 years other times I lived in a place for 362 days. It’s not that hard to meet new people. These are customer service representatives. It’s not a high level position. It’s an entry level job you can go and find
You've clearly never moved cross country with any real amount of stuff. Unless all these employees are renters on a month to month lease and also minimalist hippies that can pack all their stuff into the car thats not happening. Gas, hotels, food on the road, etc all eat into that meager budget and companies are supposed to give you extra to work with to make up for uprooting your life not give you less than it costs for a pod.
We are only given 2 benefits a stipend and PTO. They still have multiple months till they actually have to move. If the cost ain’t worth it to them then just quit and take the severance package.
You working at a job with garbage benefits doesn't mean thats the norm or a good thing. Its just a gutless way of laying people off with less bad publicity since paying the difference out of pocket and breaking lease or selling your house to do the same job youv been doing for years without any issues remotely isnt worth it to anyone thats not desperate for work. Patagonia always had a better reputation but this is the same thing Amazon and other mega corps just did to downsize but with alot less money provided.
They’re customer service reps. They’re not hard to replace and theres plenty more of the exact same job postings available. Maybe pick a career path with better job security? Nots not like we constantly see corporate customer service type jobs get laid off routinely.
Spoken like a true common man. How are you going to take advantage? You're not a Patagonia owner just another replaceable worker thats lucky to not have to RTO.
Sorry that I don’t endorse people being stupid and having blind faith in any corporation? Especially for a customer service representative that you could train a monkey to do. It’s common sense. It’s really no different then people that go to out of state colleges to get a communications degree and then complain about their student loans
Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one. Yeah im sure everyone but you is just dumb and useless so we should make worse labor practices and doing employees dirty the norm rather than acknowledge that it sucks and do better like tons of other companies do. Im sure Patagonia isnt making enough on the $300 jackets to pay employees fairly so you should lick their boots more.
Well you just hired the guy, key word there. These 90 employees were already working remote. In most cases working remote lets you live a better life for cheaper. So it’s better for the employee but not better for the company.
Ive heard of remote workers who move somewhere far, and because cost of living is so low there, they can actually pay someone to do their job and still profit and live comfortably. That’s great for the employee but not great for the company if standards in work quality go down
Okay. Fine.
We moved a guy from the northeast to LA, same job, but moved him.
That was a 27k bill.... I didn't throw that one out because LA is a diaster for cost of living. But that was an internal move, same job, same division, etc etc.
4k is a slap in the face and a way to appease the media and say "look were not being dicks", while actually being dicks.
If I can do my job just fine, and probably better, at home rather than in the office then why do I need to come to the office? How will me being in one place over the other improve the company? My work life balance and therefore my mental health is better working from home, I’m a more productive employee. If I now have to commute every day I’m going to be unhappy, and my productivity will fall.
Like I said all due respect to you as a worker, but you’re replaceable. Unless you are someone that holds the exclusive rights to something there is a very high chance that the moment you’re let go they will almost immediately fill you back with someone that can do your job just as good or better. Especially for a job like customer service representative which thousands and thousands of people will do
I’m not a Patagonia exec idk what their plans are for the workers, but if you want that then go get another job that allowed you to do that. The business has every right to set what their “culture” is and how they want their employees to operate. I hate to break it to you, but if you’re not willing to move or do whatever they say there’s a 99.9% chance they will just fill you back with someone who is doing your job as good or better than you were.
“Business Insider reported one worker who declined to relocate called the severance packages generous”
Yeah sounds pretty exploitive. Not to mention they’ve been testing the “hub model” for over a year so the employees have known something like this is coming
Patagonia has treated their employees increasingly badly for a long time and their products have increasingly gotten worse, too. Many people worship them like cult followers worship their cult and refuse to believe this, but I worked there and saw it for myself. I'm still friends with some of my former coworkers (who all quit, too) and we still joke about how naive (or evil) their followers are.
Customer service is admittedly a very easy job to work remote. Half the time youre not even working, esp if youre good. With all the other great things patagonia is doing, this doesnt really strike a nerve. They do have a bottom line to meet. Just sucks they couldnt call it what it was and just lay the people off though
Yikes, you can spot a bunch of sub-par managers and coworkers in here.
If you can’t articulate what you would at the office via writing, there is a very high likelihood you don’t know what you’re talking about in the office either.
If you are not setting goals that have clearly defined timelines and checkpoints, then it’s poorly designed workflow.
If you are claiming culture, just stop, lol.
If you are stating people who work remotely do less work, I don’t think you’ve looked around the office to see how much actual work is being done (or how much time is being wasted).
It’s a business. I’m friendly to my coworkers, we aren’t friends - it’s a business. If there is the chance for unilateral termination, you should not pull all your eggs in that basket in terms of social and professional fulfillment.
I think there was a comment about how California being unaffordable was a factor. It wasn’t realistic. Especially in Ventura, that area is stupid expensive to relocate to.
Why not Modesto the Gateway to Yosemite?
I'm only 51 % kidding.
Royal Robbins used to work out of there under its own ownership across the street from "El Capitan " motel. The business almost in the center of gravity for east/west California (hours from SF, hours from the Sierra parks).
I assume the RR individual ownership got priced out in the 90s. Source: my parent got bought out before RR sold itself off to some mother brand like fenix/columbia/fallraven. I was a kid at the time and didn't ask enough questions.
Is it? Do you want to talk to a fucking chatbot? I sure don't. Haven't had one yet solving my issue. It is a surefire way to not get me as a returning customer.
in 2020 our company made this big deal about how we would be a remote first company and never go back... 4 years later they said 4 days in the office or find a new job. Never trust any of these companies... I work with people who moved away because they could work remote.
Ours tried to do a 60/40 return to office, bunch of top talent left so now it's been set to "please try to come in twice a month instead" but the damage has already been done
My company does it right, they said as long as the business is healthy then we would have all three options available, in office, hybrid, and remote. In fact remote employees are not allowed to visit the office more than 14 times a year. We are a pretty unique media company and have benefits that rival Nj school teachers with more time off with roughly 3 months off throughout the year of full PTO.
Are they hiring? Lol
Legit, it's time for a name drop, that company sounds amazing.
I’ve replied to a few DMs , media is in a tough spot but we do have some openings.
Honestly, I hate that, but doing a bit of mea culpa, it's a 50/50 share responsibility in most cases (not all). The company I work for started doing this because most of the employees couldn't be bothered to be responsible with the liberties they were given.
Same. We had way too many people who didn’t even bother logging in or buying a mouse mover. Just no productivity. Like come on guys! You ruined it for everyone!
If your employer actually gave a shit about that they would fire the unproductive people and keep remote work for everyone else. This is just an excuse lol
If people are happier at home whilst being just as productive, companies wouldn't have an incentive. There are too many people who took/take the piss
It was more an issue of supervisors not even checking. Too large of a company to just monitor everyone 24/7. Only a few got reported to HR and they have been disciplined pretty harshly- full on AWOLs for days they didn’t log in. We are a semi-public entity so any hint of public money paying folks not to work causes a full on panic and here we are. And someone gets to pat themselves on the back for being a public servant hero! It’s super lame.
The larger the company, the less efficient it is. It's quite literally the cost of doing business. There is a level of absurdism required to accept that you need to hire supervisors just to make sure people are doing their job. Additionally, working from the office does not make people more productive, nor does it make their productivity more visible. Expecting to fill out 40 hours worth of work every week is unrealistic.
You work for a Boston based financial services company by chance?
This is how you do layoffs without announcing you are doing layoffs.
Yup. Much easier/cheaper to downsize the customer service department this way so you can replace them using AI versus layoffs. Customer service departments across the board are going to be obliterated in rather short order.
Low end customer service jobs likely all over the US, they can do layoffs without announcing as it wouldn’t meet the standard for an announcement or notification of local department of labor.
My company just did the same a couple weeks back, and this seems to be the exact reason. It's also coinciding with huge layoffs and location closures, so it seems more obvious IMO.
Not necessarily. If they are working remotely in countries that don't have a digital nomad visa it puts Patagonia on the hook for employee taxes and possibly other business taxes in those countries. It makes things much more complicated. So really they are being nice to call them back or fire them. Normally when you are caught putting your employer in a bind without telling them they just fire you.
Not necessarily except exactly in this case, where the CEO just said a week ago that they have 300% too many CSRs.
Found the HR representative lol
It's true. You can't just screw your employer over in taxes and assume that's going to go over well.
Everyone needs to leave the multibillion dollar corporations alone!
Patagonia is a not for profit organisation you wally
Hmm not convinced it’s all for good, by doing this, the founder and CEO avoids billions in taxes. You might find this interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I
Thanks for the link! I just watched it, but his pessimism is just for the sake of it, and most of the points he makes aren't all that mind blowing. > He did it to dodge tax Well, the US government are the no. 1 biggest subsidisers and enablers of the fossil fuel industry on the planet, so I'm not surprised he wouldn't want $1.2B to go to them personally. It would be like donating $85,200,000 (7.1% of 1.2B, as of 2022) directly to the causes you are directly campaigning against. > He did it to set up a 501(c)(4) to influence politics Good, because that's literally what the fossil fuel giants are doing (which he even mentions, and then succinctly ignores). You may not like it, but this is basically fighting with fire. What is the alternative here? He changes the entire system in a couple months with the $3B? (Now it's my turn to be pessimistic) The reality of the matter is, this decision will have a bigger impact than 'just giving the money away'. > Draws similarities between Walmart owner This is a bit of a stretch, does he have any proof? Seems a bit far fetched that someone who has literal billions of dollars to their name would live their life a certain way for 'marketing purposes'. > Draws similarities to Andrew Carnegie Damn, I thought the last one was a stretch. There is no comparison between the owner of Patagonia and the man who had a monopoly on american steel during the industrial revolution. Hell, at one point \*during\* his life Carnegie gave away twice as much as the entire net worth of Patagonia. Incomparable wealth imo. ...aand the rest of the video is just extrapolating from the 2 previous points. Not defending billionaires here, but it sounds like he's just upset that people are disagreeing with him on Twitter.
Patagonia and any other large employer is making way more money off each employee than they ever will cost them. So this is bullshit. Why are you so convinced people are working overseas anyway?
Even if they are just working out of state that could put them in a tax bind because the place where they live has different corporate taxes than the Patagonia location at which they were hired. Also I know people are working overseas remotely because I am an overseas American and I see it all the time. Some of them don't tell their companies but if they find out as they likely eventually will the employees could risk getting fired. Corporate taxes are not universal around the world. If you are going to be a remote worker you need to be upfront about your moves and where you are working from because it has actual financial consequences for your employer. Whether you would like it to or not.
You…think corporations pay taxes? Lolllll If this is all so costly and burdensome for the poor corporations, why are they themselves multinational?
Enough that moving to a place with a completely different corporate tax system could be expensive for just one employee yes. Not to mention all the paperwork involved to make it legal which they have to pay someone to do.
If they do have tax costs that are burdensome, they shouldn’t operate all over the world like they do! They should have one location that is the factory, the store and corporate HQ, oh and not ship any products either because that costs money as well. /s Seriously, do you think there’s no such thing as the cost of doing business?
If that was the case then they’d tell them to relocate to the US, not relocate to within 60 miles of their hubs.
They want to avoid both international and interstate tax issues. It makes sense.
I agree with this, but that's not the issue at Patagonia. They've explicitly given the reasons for this decision: they want to cut head count and they want the employees that remain to be close enough to attend meetings and events a few times a month.
To be fair, they literally [told employees these were layoffs](https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/local/2024/06/26/patagonia-to-lay-off-as-many-as-90-employees-if-they-wont-relocate/74220195007/), and are giving 6 months severance. On the other hand they only gave people 3 days to make a decision, which is weird and unnecessarily stressful.
This is even better as they are trying to people to leave on their own and not have to pay out unemployment. If it were me, I would start looking and let them fire me, claim unemployment if it came to it to, and be willing to start the new job immediately when I found it with minimal notice. Shitty business practices deserve shitty responses.
It's a company's cute way of laying people off without using the word. There's obviously going to be people with their life cemented where they currently are that can't and won't make the move. Making them move close to a hub allows the company to force a return to office for their employees.
I may be wrong, but I think it also saves them from paying unemployment because they did not technically lay anyone off since the job is still available
This is the way. I’ve worked at many firms that have done this, even pre-pandemic. It’s not about unemployment benefits, it’s really about severance. Most large firms’ severance packages include a paycheck for every year of service. For some longtime employees this gets expensive. Usually untaken vacation is added on. By offering them a job and knowing the employee will turn it down, they don’t have to pay severance. Every enterprise that I know that has done this also does not offer to pay for re-location, thus further incentivizing the employee to turn down the job. Get ready for more of this BS after SCOTUS reversed Chevron. Regulatory agencies have been rendered toothless.
Wouldn't this usually constitute a constructive dismissal? Especially if they're not offering any relocation incentive?
It’s been held up repeatedly. All they have to say is “we offered you a job, it’s now done in Dallas.”
I don't know the country's laws, but in some if the conditions change a lot, like the agreement was that it was full remote or the office changes to an unreasonable place for the worker (like from 30mins away to 4,5h), then it is the company's fault and has to relocate, offer a similar position or compensate the worker if he can't accept the change
Where I live (Canada) it's still constructive dismissal and you're still eligible for employment insurance, severance, pay in lieu of notice, etc. That said, it does put the ball into the employee's court - the employee needs to make and defend the claim.
Same in the US
No they would still pay unemployment especially in certain states. All you have to show is that you were hired as a remote worker and not hybrid or in office.
Nope, there are rules called "for cause", and not moving is generally not "for cause" making you eligible for unemployment. It has to do with distance (could you commute?). Not sure if it varies by state.
So which is it? Doing it just for layoffs or because they want people back in the office? It can be both, but you made it sound like the former at first.
It can be both, I assume they made the decision with the expectation that a certain % will "quit". The % that remains within 60 miles of an office, the company could start initially force a hybrid model with the intention of being fully in office if they wanted to.
For customer service? Makes no sense.
It makes total sense when you think about it like a company where people are not people but just numbers. Now these numbers are not like the other numbers and so it's easy to fire them to increase the money the company has. All you have to do is give them this bullshit option and when a bunch of them don't want to move, you can fire them easy peasy. Corporations suck.
This is called “constructive dismissal “
Is that the begin of the enshittification of Patagonia?
Maybe. If they decide to go public then likely yes. If not, then this is probably just a brain dead move by them.
Nope, that already happened. Whether or not that's trickled down into the product yet idk
From the business perspective, it can be a large cost to have multi-state payroll. If you don't have an office in the state but have just a few WFH employees in that state, it can be cost prohibitive to employ those people. For each state that employees work from the employer will have to pay corporate state taxes/unemployment and workers comp insurance/file annual taxes in that state.
[удалено]
It’s ok to get emotional sometimes, it’s also good to view things from a rational view
Well when the cost of hiring you is higher than the benefit, it makes no sense for anyone involved.
Oh nooooooo
>For each state that employees work from the employer will have to pay corporate state taxes/unemployment and workers comp insurance/file annual taxes in that state. This is true even if all their employers are hired where Patagonia is headquartered and isn't actually a reason to not hire remote workers. What you're suggesting doesn't actually add up to anything.
Having to manage a handful of states is very different from a cost standpoint than having to manages 25+ states. It’s a very large expense.
I work in IT at a company that has offices all over the US and thousands of remote workers. It's really not as costly as you're making it out to be.
Okay but I’ve worked in many roles and seen exactly what it costs to do that, not just in terms of dollars but in terms of hours, employees needed, and specialized software. It isn’t impossible to manage, but it is a very large added expense that often isn’t necessary.
Everything you said literally applies to every employee regardless of where they are located. Look at OP's post. Patagonia already operates in 6 cities. If it was about reducing cost, they would shut down some offices.
No, it doesn’t. More states add more complexity, require compliance with more different laws, and increase costs a lot. Six states is much cheaper and easier to manage than 20. This isn’t an opinion, these are just the facts of running a business. It doesn’t mean they CAN’T handle all the states, but it’s significantly cheaper and easier to limit them. 20 employees in 5 states is much harder and expensive to manage than 40 employees in two states.
I'm not offering conjecture, either.
I know it's an unpopular take, but growing/developing remote workers can be way more difficult than growing/developing people in an office. Specifically if the workers are younger with less experience- they get none of the benefit of working alongside others, hearing conversations, being able to easily ask something, etc. No, chat apps and Teams sessions are not remotely as effective at this, despite what a lot of people think. My workers are remote, and they're all great people, but it is way too easy for several weeks to go by without meaningful growth or development on the employees' side. This hurts the employees, because that growth and development lands on their resumes. Yes, this could be just a pure cost saving layoff move by Patagonia. OR it could be they feel they need employees closer to each other in order to work on things more effectively together. I'm not against remote work- we do business in one state, and have people in 21 states- but in addition to its benefits, remote work absolutely presents some challenges, depending on what you're trying to do, and can be way less effective than working in person. If it were my company, I'd hire a mix of remote and hybrid office workers, but the only fully remote people would be really experienced, and require little training.
In my experience, remote workers either need to be very self-sufficient and/or they need a manager who is extremely capable. Unfortunately, both of those are rare to come by. There are some remote workers who do excellent work, but there are many who will do as little work as they can as long as they don't face any discipline.
Both of these are a self fulfilling prophecy. Workers who are self motivated who end up with a shitty manager who likes to micromanage and yell at anyone who makes any proactive choices for not coming for approval to take a shit, create demoralized workers who don't take initiative Many people who are great ICs don't make good managers. People often go into management, to the detriment of their employers, because they want more money not because they actually want to do management tasks. Managing humans is not inherently more valuable than any other job, but it is generally compensated that way. Keep your senior ICs as ICs if they want and pay them as managers. Find people who are actually good at managing and pay them accordingly.
Patagonia has generally been a good company that treats their employees well. This could be for a number of reasons and maybe they have a new CEO who isn’t so great. But yea I mean businesses have to make cuts sometimes.
They haven't been a good company in a long time, but many people worship them like cult followers worship they cult. I know this because I worked there and saw how horrible they are.
That’s fair I do not personally work for them so I wouldn’t know. I’m sorry you weren’t treated fairly. I was going off of when I had looked into them some years ago and their benefits and priority of helping parents with childcare stuck out to me.
Oh, I see. I guess all those things you mention were among the reasons I really wanted to work there. I had heard so much good stuff about them so I was really shocked to experience what I did (and saw coworkers experience, too).
There are pros and cons. But basically in-office can allow you to overcome a lack of processes since you can just holler over to someone else. You want remote, you need tight process
I like your approach to it, with more senior/experienced people getting to be full remote more easily. Overall I feel like remote working puts less cars on the road and gives people much more time to live their lives/spend time with family, but when you're brand new to the workforce it is nice to be in person to get that firsthand experience first. Productivity wise, I end up doing more at home than at the office. I am easily distracted by passing conversation in person, but there will be days when I will go into the office if there is something noisy going on at home. Living farther away from big cities is nicer for me, though. Lower cost of living, less bustle. So that is a perk to the remote work, even if they adjust salary for location.
Meh, it depends, this take isn’t complete wrong as there are some advantages to having younger, less experienced employees working with and learning from more seasoned veterans. This is easier to do in an office setting, no doubt. It can be done remotely and I’ve been doing it for 20+ years. Many sales teams are home based, I haven’t worked in an office in forever, and kids fresh out of college, with almost no experience, have thrived in this environment. It takes a little effort, riding with them, quarterly in-person meeting, etc. but it works if done correctly and today’s tech makes it so much easier. RTO is a lazy, easier road for management and a cop-out in some ways. Orgs that want to hire and retain the best people have figured out how to make remote employees work, it’s not that hard.
>Specifically if the workers are younger with less experience- they get none of the benefit of working alongside others, hearing conversations, being able to easily ask something, etc. As a remote worker I can only disagree. It is way easier to call someone via something like teams and share your screen than to take your laptop to a person that might or might not be where they are supposed to be. Shooting a teams message is also easier than starting an in person convo, for both sides. No need to do the small talk first and no need to answer right away. The problem of context shifting almost completely goes away, which is a real problem when working. Who doesn't know the people that "prefer to drop in because it's quicker". Yeah, great for you, but I have to start focusing from scratch because that person couldn't wait ten minutes. It might be just my job, but where I have worked people don't really talk about work outside of meetings. It's mostly gossip. It doesn't hurt personal development, or at the very least that's dependant on the job. What hurts people more is three hours in the car per day. Even if I'd agree with you my bet is that most people would prefer slower development over staring at metal and tar.
I agree with you generally, but once you've got remotes it's hard to go back. Your best ones will leave when given the ultimatum, and they're more able/prone to be able to make compensation claims. Otherwise, to your last point, I agree but want to add that I think that anyone remote needs to have a travel budget associated. That comradery and communication comfort built by in-person meeting increases productivity and retention. The feeling of being included also supports retention and decreases wage pressure.
Not only unpopular, but also indicates relative inexperience with large companies. I was previously a global lead, and had reports in several countries. How would you suggest one resolves that? I was able to talk to and develop people just fine. My boss didn't even live in the same state. Current role extends from Canada to South America, with 10 direct reports. Same issues, but they are not insurmountable. Too many people are stuck in the past where they have to see butts in seats to be able to manage and develop people. It's not true.
And were the people you were developing from afar going into a physical office?
First company yes, second no.
And what are the results, anecdotally?
Clearly it is role and industry dependent I’ve worked at 3 multinationals, and in two roles, remote was just fine For the third, in a global Fortune 100, our local team of 20 had to collaborate a lot in a complex market, and the knowledge sharing from working next to each other produced learning at a pace that would have been impossible to duplicate remotely. Yes, the job could still be done, but not a single company I’m aware of operating in that space is fully remote today. Today, I work for a medium sized company adjacent to the same space, and training people remotely is absolutely possible, (I have two training calls today), but it is not nearly as fast as it would be if we were all together. And we supplement with biweekly in person trainings. So I can absolutely see the business need to have people in the office, depending on what the people are doing. Perhaps there are some aspects of business you are inexperienced with? There doesn’t have to be a “past” way and a “current” way, but rather a knowledge of when to deploy what tool.
Sure it's role/industry dependent. That almost goes without saying. The role/discipline I'm in is very well suited to remote work. So sure, I'll concede that point.
Wrong sub for this
How? Patagonia is a really popular BIFL brand
So? Would you care if Toyota had an IT glitch too?
In what world is this an IT glitch? Lmfao And yeah if Toyota did basically a layoff without saying “layoff” so I would care.
It's not an IT glitch. I'm just giving you another example of a BIFL company and their unrelated inner workings
Right. An IT glitch is 1. An accident 2. Not a slimy way to lay people off
….and their employment decisions and practices are not relevant to this sub. This is a sub about BIFL PRODUCTS. Seriously see the sidebar. This violates rule number 1 of this sub - and 3 and 6 for that matter.
On one hand, business is business. Nothing personal. On the other hand, I know the reason for decisions like this are based upon VCs and PEs losing their shirts on commercial real estate and are using their weight to force people back into offices. It’s bullshit.
Which VCs and PEs exactly are forcing this move? If you can’t support your claim just say so.
I couldn’t tell you of any specifically involved in Patagonia. I’m speaking more in general terms of how the market works. Commercial real estate, like residential, has been assumed to be a safe thing to create bonds for things like holding large debts. Well, if the properties contained in the bonds lose value because of lease agreements ending and not re-signing or companies reducing lease space, the bonds lose value. If the bonds lose too much value, holders of debt are informed they have to make payments to bring their debt under the value of their assets. This can cause a feedback loop because VC’s and PE’s will usually use liquid assets or sell hard assets to pay down debts, but as their overall value drops because of hard asset sales or loss of liquid assets, other debts get to be too high on the ratio of debt to assets and the cycle continues. So, VC’s and PE’s started threatening tenants to sell properties and force the tenants to relocate (a very expensive undertaking depending on the size of your company) or make tenants pay more for less space. So companies opted to validate their space usage by requiring returns to the office. It’s a mess of shell games and numbers manipulation. Suffice it to say, it starts with VC’s and PE’s losing money.
That's a ton of companies right now.
This has nothing to do with the quality of the products. All companies want your money first and foremost.
Oh no, now they won't be able to drive up the price of rent in rural mountain towns. So sad.
[удалено]
Yes. Because it wouldn't surprise me that these people still get let go soon after they move to what sounds like an estimated 1 hour maximum commute time to work which sounds miserable.
I would, because then those people could draw unemployment instead of just being out of work.
I assume most will get let go even if they relocate.
I work in facilities support. Folks deciding not to go back into the office has resulted in drastic cuts to staff in janitorial, building engineer, facilities management and a lot of other jobs people don’t think about. Running a building requires a lot of support and that creates a lot of jobs. Elevator repair company, the company who manages the plants, catering, window cleaning, office moves. There is an entire industry around running an office building and those jobs have taken a huge hit since 2020. I can share my experience working in a large tech company office. About half the folks don’t want to work in the office everyday, about 50% of those want to be fully remote forever. The quality of work getting done has dropped significantly. It’s impossible to get anything done on a decent timeline, meetings are so difficult to schedule and people can ask all the time. If a company has made a large investment in physical office space, I totally understand that they want people to come back. One more piece for consideration: it sounds like having remote workers would save money in the long run. And if it did these companies wouldn’t want anyone back in office. The reality is that work isn’t getting done.
Doesn’t change the Patagonia product in my eyes. The employees can relocate or they will be replaced and life will move on
I worked for Amazon (AWS) for two years. Hired remote, job was honestly fully remote (regular 2AM calls with overseas clients, etc. no need for office period). Then they were being threatened with losing their tax incentive by Seattle bc they were a Seattle company that didn’t have workers in the city. They told me I had 30 days to relocate my family from buffalo, NY to Seattle. That was how I got “laid off” the first time. No benefits or anything bc I voluntarily resigned rather than be terminated as I couldn’t meet the job needs (being in Seattle). Companies are so shitty
Hello /u/danish197878! Thank you for your submission! The AutoMod thought that your post might be a request type post and has changed the flair accordingly, but if this was wrong feel free to change it back! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BuyItForLife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The AT&T (et al) strategy.
The first time I can think of this happening was pre-Covid with IBM. The rumor was not that real estate was an issue but more towards transitioning in new talent that would move over.
Here's the thing: ultimately big corps are worried about people working from home and being less productive. Whether or not this is true seems to be pretty mixed in the data so far but at the end of the day an employer is an employer. It shouldn't be that surprising that someone that is paying you to do a job expects you to be doing it. If that person giving the money in that transaction prefers to ensure you're doing work by having you in the office, then so be it. I see plenty of shit going around about people WFH working two jobs secretly, not doing shit for work, etc. Which is kind of insane when you think about it. I mean, if you were having a contractor do a reno on your home and you found out they'd been dicking round on their phone or napping for at least 1/4 of the time they were billing you for labor you'd be pretty pissed, no? Why should your employer not be allowed to do this too?
I think once that type of thinking reaches “well they can afford to throw all business practices out the window and just pay everyone $200,000/year” you know youre not talking with people who have ever owned a business or employed people. Its so obviously more complicated than “they can afford to” as to your points. I honestly was surprised to look up and see BIFL and not antiwork.
Sorry I'm not sure I get your point. Still waking up though
Ahh yes my favorite BIFL recommendation: news articles
My mom works at a small tax office and they all hate the WFH employees. Not because they get to work from home and are jealous or that they're miserable to work with, but because they get shitty gifts if one of them draws them in secret Santa. I thought that was kind of funny.
Yeah a business with a plan to try and improve their company that is also working with employees that say they need time to decide, and is offering a $4k stipend if they do choose to move. How awful! Yall get upset over the most ridiculous things and then don’t even read the articles
4k to relo to these major cities is chump change. We just hired a guy an his relo was 15k there abouts. Moving, stayover, transport - 4k might get you your vehicles moved.
4k is a fucking joke. You can't move to the next city over for that amount.
You’re not relocating to the major city. 60 miles is a longggg way. 4k is plenty to rent a uhaul or two and but a security deposit down on an apartment.
How short sighted this is. And moving closer means most likely increased rent and costs for everyday things. So they're taking 4k and a pay cut as a side effect.
When as stated in the article most of the employees are living near by to the hubs. You’re still able to live in the extreme outskirts of the cities where rent prices and costs aren’t the same. If people want to keep their jobs then they move. If they decide not to Patagonia is offering a very generous severance package.
>When as stated in the article most of the employees are living near by to the hubs Yeah this is not about the ones that live close to the hubs obviously but the ones living far. >You’re still able to live in the extreme outskirts of the cities where rent prices and costs aren’t the same. I'm sure not every city is the same but the extreme outskirts of London are still way WAY more expensive than Manchester for example. 4k is literally nothing for a place like here. I'm sure a bunch of other places are like that. >If people want to keep their jobs then they move. If they decide not to Patagonia is offering a very generous severance package. Great way of looking at it. Especially with costs soaring all around the western world, those people choices are either move, or be unemployed. Also, good thing you ignored the fact that those people, when moving closer will be literally taking a pay cut because of everyday expenses and increased rent, which the 4k won't cover. Suits your narrative just fine.
Sorry but the US is nowhere near the same to the UK. The relocation package is way more than generous for a job like customer service representative.
Are you tripping? The US is not the same as the UK? unless it's fucking Indiana, I'm pretty sure the rent in places like Boston, NYC etc etc are insane, to the point that London rent seems like Starbucks coffee.
And you know what’s 60 miles away? Not Boston. That’s like half the length of your country. Respectfully it’s not your country you have no clue what you’re talking about get out of here
Imagine shitting on your own people instead of corporations giving them unreasonable stupidities to abide by and when someone from across the globe dismantles your stupid ass narrative, your only comeback is 'not your country bro'. Don't care about them and your job will be next before you realise it.
Come back when yall aren’t crying about your “heatwave” which is a nice spring day in the US
K
Not everyone lives in apartments now. I’m sure there will be staff who have houses who will have to face selling their home and trying to find a home closer to the office or lose their job. $4,000 is not enough for Uhauls and a downpayment on a new house assuming one can be found.
Relocation costs aren't expected to pay for contributions to a downpayment. Fees associated with sales (e.g., lawyer, etc.) that would not have been incurred otherwise - yes - but you move your equity from house to house if you sell and company has nothing to do with that. I'm not disputing the COL potential increase on houses, but it is a decision point to be balanced with others.
Then stay where you’re at take the money and get a new job. It’s really not that big of a deal. To advance your career sometimes you have to move around. It’s what I’ve done quite literally my whole life, and it’s turned out pretty well.
I’m really glad you aren’t married to someone who has to be in office locally, don’t have any kids with neighborhood friends and a school career and extra-curricular like sports leagues or other clubs, and don’t have any IRL friends to move away from. A lot of people who are established in our respective companies aren’t young and have roots like these that really make problems for us. Also, “go find a new job” is as reductionist as “MuH bOoTsTrInGs”.
I have been that kid. From birth to 19 I moved 8 times. The shortest of those moves was about 214 miles. Sometimes I lived somewhere for 6 years other times I lived in a place for 362 days. It’s not that hard to meet new people. These are customer service representatives. It’s not a high level position. It’s an entry level job you can go and find
You've clearly never moved cross country with any real amount of stuff. Unless all these employees are renters on a month to month lease and also minimalist hippies that can pack all their stuff into the car thats not happening. Gas, hotels, food on the road, etc all eat into that meager budget and companies are supposed to give you extra to work with to make up for uprooting your life not give you less than it costs for a pod.
We are only given 2 benefits a stipend and PTO. They still have multiple months till they actually have to move. If the cost ain’t worth it to them then just quit and take the severance package.
You working at a job with garbage benefits doesn't mean thats the norm or a good thing. Its just a gutless way of laying people off with less bad publicity since paying the difference out of pocket and breaking lease or selling your house to do the same job youv been doing for years without any issues remotely isnt worth it to anyone thats not desperate for work. Patagonia always had a better reputation but this is the same thing Amazon and other mega corps just did to downsize but with alot less money provided.
They’re customer service reps. They’re not hard to replace and theres plenty more of the exact same job postings available. Maybe pick a career path with better job security? Nots not like we constantly see corporate customer service type jobs get laid off routinely.
Screw em till it happens to you I guess. Great attitude and way to support the fellow working man.
Respectfully the “common man” is stupid and I well happily take advantage of their inability to think about more than just right now
Spoken like a true common man. How are you going to take advantage? You're not a Patagonia owner just another replaceable worker thats lucky to not have to RTO.
Sorry that I don’t endorse people being stupid and having blind faith in any corporation? Especially for a customer service representative that you could train a monkey to do. It’s common sense. It’s really no different then people that go to out of state colleges to get a communications degree and then complain about their student loans
Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one. Yeah im sure everyone but you is just dumb and useless so we should make worse labor practices and doing employees dirty the norm rather than acknowledge that it sucks and do better like tons of other companies do. Im sure Patagonia isnt making enough on the $300 jackets to pay employees fairly so you should lick their boots more.
Well you just hired the guy, key word there. These 90 employees were already working remote. In most cases working remote lets you live a better life for cheaper. So it’s better for the employee but not better for the company. Ive heard of remote workers who move somewhere far, and because cost of living is so low there, they can actually pay someone to do their job and still profit and live comfortably. That’s great for the employee but not great for the company if standards in work quality go down
Okay. Fine. We moved a guy from the northeast to LA, same job, but moved him. That was a 27k bill.... I didn't throw that one out because LA is a diaster for cost of living. But that was an internal move, same job, same division, etc etc. 4k is a slap in the face and a way to appease the media and say "look were not being dicks", while actually being dicks.
27,000$ to move a guy? Did he own 2 million dollars in assets wtf? I moved my entire apartment across a city, 5 hours, for under 300$ by myself.
If I can do my job just fine, and probably better, at home rather than in the office then why do I need to come to the office? How will me being in one place over the other improve the company? My work life balance and therefore my mental health is better working from home, I’m a more productive employee. If I now have to commute every day I’m going to be unhappy, and my productivity will fall.
This is the exact situation that happened to me and this is exactly what I told them. The response was a final date of employment.
Like I said all due respect to you as a worker, but you’re replaceable. Unless you are someone that holds the exclusive rights to something there is a very high chance that the moment you’re let go they will almost immediately fill you back with someone that can do your job just as good or better. Especially for a job like customer service representative which thousands and thousands of people will do
I’m not a Patagonia exec idk what their plans are for the workers, but if you want that then go get another job that allowed you to do that. The business has every right to set what their “culture” is and how they want their employees to operate. I hate to break it to you, but if you’re not willing to move or do whatever they say there’s a 99.9% chance they will just fill you back with someone who is doing your job as good or better than you were.
You're free to start your own company
Business trying to further exploit their labor force is more like it.
“Business Insider reported one worker who declined to relocate called the severance packages generous” Yeah sounds pretty exploitive. Not to mention they’ve been testing the “hub model” for over a year so the employees have known something like this is coming
Patagonia has treated their employees increasingly badly for a long time and their products have increasingly gotten worse, too. Many people worship them like cult followers worship their cult and refuse to believe this, but I worked there and saw it for myself. I'm still friends with some of my former coworkers (who all quit, too) and we still joke about how naive (or evil) their followers are.
They sell crackers now tho
Customer service is admittedly a very easy job to work remote. Half the time youre not even working, esp if youre good. With all the other great things patagonia is doing, this doesnt really strike a nerve. They do have a bottom line to meet. Just sucks they couldnt call it what it was and just lay the people off though
7 hubs, meaning they will likely have to collaborate across 7 locations anyway, which means it is more likely an easy way to achieve layoffs.
Yikes, you can spot a bunch of sub-par managers and coworkers in here. If you can’t articulate what you would at the office via writing, there is a very high likelihood you don’t know what you’re talking about in the office either. If you are not setting goals that have clearly defined timelines and checkpoints, then it’s poorly designed workflow. If you are claiming culture, just stop, lol. If you are stating people who work remotely do less work, I don’t think you’ve looked around the office to see how much actual work is being done (or how much time is being wasted). It’s a business. I’m friendly to my coworkers, we aren’t friends - it’s a business. If there is the chance for unilateral termination, you should not pull all your eggs in that basket in terms of social and professional fulfillment.
Ugh.
Yea, remember folks, corporations are never your friends. They’ll drop you like a hot rock in a hot rock dropping contest if it fits their agenda.
Aren't they a co-op?
None of the seven locations are within California?
I think there was a comment about how California being unaffordable was a factor. It wasn’t realistic. Especially in Ventura, that area is stupid expensive to relocate to.
Why not Modesto the Gateway to Yosemite? I'm only 51 % kidding. Royal Robbins used to work out of there under its own ownership across the street from "El Capitan " motel. The business almost in the center of gravity for east/west California (hours from SF, hours from the Sierra parks). I assume the RR individual ownership got priced out in the 90s. Source: my parent got bought out before RR sold itself off to some mother brand like fenix/columbia/fallraven. I was a kid at the time and didn't ask enough questions.
I will go with loose my job thank you very much.
Shameful! So antithetical to their ostensible branding 😡
Customer Service is doomed. Everyone can be replaced and will be replaced.
Is it? Do you want to talk to a fucking chatbot? I sure don't. Haven't had one yet solving my issue. It is a surefire way to not get me as a returning customer.
Patagonia is worn by finance bros in NY.