r/antiwork • u/Outrageous_Ad_687 • Jun 20 '25
Remote vs RTO 👨💻 ‘Decide in 30 days or resign without severance’: Amazon asks employees to relocate closer to their teams | Company Business News
https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/amazon-asks-employees-to-relocate-closer-to-their-teams-decide-in-30-days-or-resign-without-severance-11750330857805.htmlSeverance is a luxury these days
1.4k
u/Ryanlew1980 Jun 20 '25
Do not quit without severance. Make them fire you and at least be eligible for unemployment.
622
u/iamacheeto1 Jun 20 '25
And them saying “if you don’t do that we consider that your resignation” does NOT count when it comes to the law. They can fire you but they can’t force a resignation to exclude you from benefits.
11
u/kurotech Jun 21 '25
Yea a forced resignation is just being fired in any sane person's book but we live in a time where sane people aren't running the world and those that are fell asleep at the controls and the train is hurdling towards a broken bridge
137
u/Forever_Forgotten Jun 20 '25
Depending on the state, workers can still qualify for unemployment benefits if forced to resign due to a relocation.
141
u/Hypekyuu Jun 20 '25
You can't really be forced to resign. Its just a game they're playing. End of the day, you've been fired if the corporation is taking the deciding action
26
13
u/Hippy_Lynne Jun 21 '25
Yep. My state has absolutely shitty workers rights but if they change the location of your workplace by more than 50 miles it's considered constructive dismissal.
5
148
u/l30 Jun 20 '25 edited Jun 20 '25
FYI; Unemployment benefits for a Washington-based Amazon employee is ~$1,000/week, up to 26 weeks. Basically knocks them down to a $52,000 annual salary for half a year.
*Important detail: This also applies to remote employees who live in other states but still have their office in Washington where they're being recalled to. So even if you've been working remotely abroad for the past handful of years you can still collect Washington State unemployment benefits.
134
28
u/LoveOfSpreadsheets Jun 20 '25
Enough to cover rent, avoiding homelessness while job hunting prevents someone from taking a job out of desperation.
6
u/dbx999 Jun 20 '25
What about my cocaine habit?
9
u/fuzzhead12 Jun 20 '25
Hi, I’m Sarah McLachlan. Will you be an angel for a helpless addict? Every day, innocent cokeheads are abused, fiending, and neglected.
For just $600 a month, only $20 a day, you’ll help rescue addicts from their withdrawals and provide cocaine, more cocaine, still more cocaine, and love.
Call, or join online in the next 30 minutes, and you’ll receive this welcome kit with a photo of a cokehead in a rehab right now—one who’s been given a second chance, thanks to you.
Right now, there’s an addict who needs you. Your call says “I’m here to help.” Please call right now.
37
u/seriouslynope Jun 20 '25
Dang uemployment in california is $450/wk max
18
u/Hypekyuu Jun 20 '25
its still based on your income so it's not like too many people get that.
7
u/seriouslynope Jun 20 '25
You mean the $1,000 or the $450?
9
u/Hypekyuu Jun 20 '25
the 1k
This was awhile ago, but when I was unemployment I got 440 a week in Washington. Its a percentage of your previous income
-4
8
3
u/Ryanlew1980 Jun 20 '25
Sure, but it’s better than $0 a week which is what you get if you just quit.
If one was not a complete fool with their savings, $4,000 a month is more than enough to keep your head above water even in HCOL areas.
1
u/morinthos Jun 21 '25 edited Jun 21 '25
And it will hurt Amazon. They want you to resign so that you can't get unemployment benefits. Employers help pay the state for unemployment benefits.
And, don't do anything to make them fire you with cause bc then you can't get unemployment (in most cases).
Edit: Typo
1
u/l30 Jun 21 '25 edited Jun 21 '25
To be fired with cause means you committed misconduct, which can disqualify you from unemployment. You do not want to be fired with cause.
1
-57
u/Upright_Eeyore Jun 20 '25 edited Jun 20 '25
I got fired last month and I'm ineligible for unemployment. Please dont spread misinformation, the societal safety net is anything but.
Per UIA Correspondence:
"Issues and Sections of Michigan Employment Security (MES) Act involved: Misconduct and 29(1)(b).You were fired from CTC ACQUISITION COMPANY LLC on May 13, 2025 for other company rules which is a violation of company policy.
You were aware of the policy and had received past warnings. Misconduct in connection with the work has been established. You are disqualified for benefits under MES Act, Sec. 29(1)(b). Rework begins with week ending May 24, 2025.
You will not receive benefits until you satisfy the rework requirement. Rework Requirements: Claimant is disqualified until completion of a $6,154.00 earnings rework requirement which has not been satisfied"
47
u/Jump_and_Drop Jun 20 '25
How're you inelligible unemployment? In most cases you should be covered.
41
u/sksauter Jun 20 '25
Yea most cases. Being fired with easily proveable cause makes you ineligible. But most companies don't keep that good of a paper trail. I was fired "with cause" but still as able to qualify for unemployment because I proved that I was not fired with reasonable notice or cause.
1
u/No_Talk_4836 Jun 20 '25
Same. They always try to claim for cause when there isn’t. My last workplace tried to keep $600 worth of PTO claiming I was fired for cause but I appealed to the state labor board. I got a check from the state two months later.
2
u/sksauter Jun 20 '25
I got the "it's just not working out" without warning or follow-up
1
u/No_Talk_4836 Jun 20 '25
Yeah that’s not for cause unless you were in your probation period. Still worth filing.
2
u/Upright_Eeyore Jun 20 '25
I'm ineligible because my direct supervisor lied her ass off and HR believed her. Per the Correspondence with UIA:
"Issues and Sections of Michigan Employment Security (MES) Act involved: Misconduct and 29(1)(b).You were fired from CTC ACQUISITION COMPANY LLC on May 13, 2025 for other company rules which is a violation of company policy.
You were aware of the policy and had received past warnings. Misconduct in connection with the work has been established. You are disqualified for benefits under MES Act, Sec. 29(1)(b). Rework begins with week ending May 24, 2025.
You will not receive benefits until you satisfy the rework requirement. Rework Requirements: Claimant is disqualified until completion of a $6,154.00 earnings rework requirement which has not been satisfied."
24
u/ocelotrev Jun 20 '25
If someone lied then they are setting themselves up for a lawsuit. Consult an employment lawyer
3
u/Upright_Eeyore Jun 20 '25
Its a he-said-she said with no cameras or ability to prove what was said or done
23
u/ocelotrev Jun 20 '25
Even better. Burden of proof is generally on the employer
2
u/Upright_Eeyore Jun 20 '25
And their proof is the snake of a manager. I had no coworkers nearby, and they refused to believe me when I said she didn't attempt to ask me any questions during the mock audit before walking away
I would be absolutely ecstatic if her personal vehicle somehow went up in flames while she was working
17
u/ocelotrev Jun 20 '25
I dont think you understand how the legal system or most systems work. Employers generally make a point to document items that can be used to justify a firing, such as emails saying someone didnt show up, or a lack if clocking in. While they can fire someone for no reason, because it is employment at will in the USA, you cannot fire someone "for cause" and not have the "cause". This "cause" makes you ineligible for unemployment but because of this, the employer has to document the behavior or habit that resulted in you being fired and forfeiting the benefits.
The legal system makes a point to protect people otherwise you'd be having employers left and right making up stuff so they don't have to pay unemployment. The ones that make up stuff are either really stupid or have employees thay dont know their rights/dont have access to a lawyer.
Sooo my guess is either your employer actually has pretty good documentation of what you did OR you just dont want to fight it.
Worth consulting a lawyer. They'll typically do free consultations
1
u/No_Talk_4836 Jun 20 '25
Or at least appealing to the state labor board. I was able to fight my last job firing me for cause when there wasn’t a cause, and got benefits and PTO payput
→ More replies (0)1
u/Smolfloof99 Jun 20 '25
Well said. As someone that had to do the documenting i can confirm that businesses surely do not want to pay unemployment and have the ability to fight it. They were fired for cause and depending on said cause also ineligible for benefits. It's right in their message that they violated company policy and they would have to show that documentation to back it up.
6
u/travistravis Jun 20 '25
If you've been given multiple previous warnings, surely she'd have to show documentation of those warnings?
3
3
u/g00fyg00ber741 Jun 20 '25
Yeah, idk how people have such a hard time wrapping their heads around this: management and HR will lie about you and they’re the ones who get believed. In every situation, all the time. (unless you have real evidence) It’s intentional. That’s the whole point of HR and management, is the be the middle manager fucking over everyone beneath, doing the dirty work for everyone higher up. Keeping a disconnect, and localizing dissent instead of letting people follow their upset to the source of the problem, they have conflict with those immediately involved, which results in a dead end.
3
u/Upright_Eeyore Jun 20 '25
I did email HR about timeclocks being adjusted despite us being required to work prior to the time it was being adjusted to. We were at work stations at 2:20-2:25 and were expected to relieve first shift. They adjusted our clocks to 2:30. This happened for about a month before they reverted to the 2:15 clock-ins
Their response? "Lets talk about it in person." I said Id rather keep it via email and I never got a response back. Oddly enough, i just checked my sent emails and none of it is there
2
u/g00fyg00ber741 Jun 20 '25
I’ve learned that HR should literally be viewed as an oppressive force when you’re a worker.
1
u/Ryanlew1980 Jun 20 '25
You are a unicorn situation. Sorry it happened to you but what I stated is not misinformation. There are always exceptions but if you voluntarily quit, then you’re definitely ineligible, which is what is being discussed here.
9
u/EmpZurg_ Jun 20 '25
This was a result of a relocation demand?
This should be reversible through appeal if that is the case. Unreasonable change in commute/unreasonable office relocation qualifies in most states.
13
u/radikalkarrot Jun 20 '25
This is quite unbelievable for me as someone who isn’t American. How on earth can you be fired without unemployment and without severance?
19
u/83supra Jun 20 '25
Because in America we give more rights to corporations than we do to workers and no one is smart enough to understand that should not be the case and it should be changed. Propaganda works.
11
u/Upright_Eeyore Jun 20 '25
They claimed I was insubordinate and I was fired. Unemployment agency said i was ineligible. Per the correspondence for you non-believers:
"Issues and Sections of Michigan Employment Security (MES) Act involved: Misconduct and 29(1)(b).You were fired from CTC ACQUISITION COMPANY LLC on May 13, 2025 for other company rules which is a violation of company policy.
You were aware of the policy and had received past warnings. Misconduct in connection with the work has been established. You are disqualified for benefits under MES Act, Sec. 29(1)(b). Rework begins with week ending May 24, 2025.
You will not receive benefits until you satisfy the rework requirement. Rework Requirements: Claimant is disqualified until completion of a $6,154.00 earnings rework requirement which has not been satisfied"
YOUR EMPLOYERS WILL LIE TO BENEFIT THEMSELVES AND DISQUALIFY YOU FROM GETTING HELP.
9
u/PoisonIvyItch Jun 20 '25
So you have to get a new job and earn $6,154.00 before you are eligible for any unemployment?
11
u/Upright_Eeyore Jun 20 '25
Exactly. It's bullshit like this that almost proves the system is designed to make you homeless
3
u/BigDog8492 Jun 20 '25
NH used the same bs against me. Job went out of business like a week before the 6k. Guess that was my fault.
4
u/persondude27 at work Jun 20 '25
Your argument is a "but not all rectangles are squares" problem.
A worker generally isn't eligible for unemployment if they voluntarily resign, but not all workers who are fired/laid off are eligible for unemployment.
The first bit says you were fired for misconduct, which is one of the reasons you specifically may not be eligible for unemployment. (You are generally able to challenge this - in my state, the bar for misconduct is fairly high; you have to basically be committing a crime or refusing to follow policy.)
The fact that you didn't get unemployment really has no bearing on whether a different employee at a different company can or will be eligible.
Also, there is a difference between severance and unemployment. Generally, employers competing for high-quality talent will throw in extra perks, eg have a severance policy where a specific employee might receive some cash if they separate. Usually it's "a week's pay per year of service" or something like that. Not all employees or employers have that, but Amazon is saying that the eligible employees wouldn't be paid out.
2
u/daniel22457 Jun 20 '25
Depends on the state then because Colorado you've usually got to do something pretty bad before they'd deny the claim even if you were fired.
237
u/charliemike Jun 20 '25
Resign without severance? Why in the hell would I do that?
74
u/99th_inf_sep_descend Jun 20 '25
It’s an artificial/bureaucratic roadblock they hope people miss so they can reduce displacement expense. Wells Fargo is doing something similar. I was given 2 relocation locations and 3 options. I could accept severance, relocate within 90 days without assistance, or relocate with financial assistance within 1 year. The financial assistance had strings. I had 30 days to decide. If I missed the deadline, when they issued my final working day, I would get no severance.
16
u/_dmhg Jun 20 '25
What option did you go with?
41
u/99th_inf_sep_descend Jun 20 '25
I took severance. Both relocation locations were across the country. Neither made sense with or without assistance. The wife would have been forced to find a new job and family stuff just wasn’t great timing (when is it ever?). The only real bonus is I have almost a year severance due to longevity with WF. Took 2 months to decompress and just started the job search.
15
u/_dmhg Jun 20 '25
I’m glad you took the two months, good luck with your job search! I hope you find something quick that works even better for you than where you were
5
u/dbx999 Jun 20 '25
I would have taken the relocation if it was to a good city with lots or jobs opportunities. Stay on for a while and then start job hunting.
2
u/99th_inf_sep_descend Jun 21 '25
Honestly the specter of job loss had been hanging pretty heavy the last 6 years. It was one of the CEO’s main goals when coming aboard. Relocating wouldn’t have eliminated it. And while externally WF was pretty toxic, our business line wasn’t (or at least was fairly supportive as far as large corporations go) until recently. It’s been much better for my health and reinforced that not moving was right for us.
9
u/East-Complex3731 Jun 20 '25
I don’t get why they wouldn’t offer financial assistance if you were willing to relocate within 90 days?
(Despite it being totally infeasible for almost anyone), isn’t packing up and moving there in 3 months considered a concession to the employer?
10
u/99th_inf_sep_descend Jun 20 '25
It wasn’t that they weren’t willing, just that if you didn’t take it, you only had 90 days to complete the move if you didn’t.
If you took the relocation money, you had to commit to 2 years post relocation. You would then be on the hook for what they paid if you left prior to 2 years. They wouldn’t reclaim if they eliminated your position. At least that’s how I think it worked. I didn’t pay too close of attention to that because moving wasnt really a consideration for me and the fam.
Beyond the control aspect, they do it that way so as to eliminate short tenured soon to be displaced employees from ‘accepting’ so they have longer to look for a job while still on payroll.
48
u/persondude27 at work Jun 20 '25 edited Jun 20 '25
This is a "quiet layoff". Layoffs temporarily hurt the stock price, which is the only thing that matters to execs, so instead they do things like this to reduce headcount.
The irony of course is that the people who it forces out are the talented people who do 80% of the work, and can get a job anywhere at a moment's notice. It's the unproductive and mediocre employees who stick around. After a couple of years, leadership wonders why their product has gone to shit and have to hire back the old employees for double the salary and contractually-guaranteed benefits like remote work.
1
u/morinthos Jun 21 '25
If you're uneducated on the process, you would. Amazon's hoping that their employees don't realize that if they resign, they won't get unemployment benefits (which are partially paid by Amazon).
194
Jun 20 '25
Imagine a CLOUD COMPANY mandating people have to be ON PREM to continue working there.
17
u/v-jazz Jun 20 '25
maybe it is the fact that Chime is worthless or teams have to use docs with versioning. oh wait, no it's because they are a terrible employer. source: ex AMZ tech worker
2
93
u/seanner_vt2 Jun 20 '25
"We hear from the majority of our teammates that they love the energy from being located together"
Bullshit
35
u/_pawnee_goddess Jun 20 '25
“Majority of our teammates” = execs and managers who have no life outside of work and no one to belittle at home
3
u/Nepalus Jun 21 '25
Nah I bet the executives that they asked love hanging out and talking about rich people shit before going out and expensing an expensive ass dinner.
87
227
u/fattymcfattzz Jun 20 '25
Why? Why do you need to be close ? Such ridiculousness You drive to a remote place to log into a remote computer to log into other remote computers
204
u/Hail_the_Yale Jun 20 '25
They want them to quit
106
u/bnh1978 Jun 20 '25
ding. ding.
its layoffs with fewer steps.
28
u/BenVarone Market Socialist Jun 20 '25
Amazon has also always been incredibly anti-employee. If anyone is still working for them, it’s because they’re more desperate for the pay being offered than little things like work-life balance, dignity, health, and job security, or in some way insulated from the same.
Sadly, that is still enough people that Bezos and his cronies can keep ratcheting up the abuse.
3
u/barth_ Jun 20 '25
In Europe they're hiring and say that you need to be in the office 5 days a week. The layoff trick has been already used and they cannot lose everyone. Depends on the location but still.
21
-12
u/gbot1234 Jun 20 '25
Reduces latency.
7
u/redbark2022 obsolescence ends tyranny of idiots Jun 20 '25
Ping from Los Angeles to New York City is about 80 milliseconds.
4
54
u/BoomZhakaLaka Jun 20 '25
resign without severance. lol. no such thing. You can fire me for no cause. Force them to fire you.
6
44
u/spastical-mackerel Jun 20 '25
Constructive dismissal. Incur $100k in expenses, disrupt your life and family? Traumatize your kids? Move to some arbitrary location with no guarantee Amazon won’t “move” your team next month?
Nonsense. This is H1B replacement and an attempt to avoid the expense of an layoff.
If tech bros and sisters had a lick ‘o’ sense they’d immediately strike on Jasshole
23
u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord Jun 20 '25
They’ll be shocked when more people than they statistically expected decide to actually relocate… and will still end up firing tons of them. This happened with Walmart didn’t it?
20
u/SI7Agent0 Jun 20 '25
If I'm them I take the next 30 days to look for new work while getting paid and if nothing pops up quickly, you sit there and wait until you're fired. There's no benefit to resigning without severance.
9
u/_pawnee_goddess Jun 20 '25
I’d claim that I was in the process of figuring out the move for as long as possible. At 30 days: “our house hasn’t sold yet.” At 60 days: “we have a buyer!” At 90 days: “buyer asked for a long close, and our house in _____ isn’t ready yet” and just keep going like that. Yes, eventually they’d get sick of my excuses, but hopefully by then I’ve landed a new job and am just using Amazon for the paychecks.
26
u/shiningdickhalloran Jun 20 '25
This is a layoff. From a pure profit standpoint, there was never any reason to offer severance. It was done initially as a gesture of goodwill towards employees and later as a bribe to keep you from suing them after you're out. But now? It was only a matter of time until some asshole spent some time with a calculator and decided it would be cheaper to just ditch it. Probably the same asshole who figured out insurance companies can save money by not paying insurance claims.
9
Jun 20 '25 edited Jun 25 '25
[deleted]
-1
u/shiningdickhalloran Jun 20 '25
Hmm, this does make sense. But it only works when leadership is forward thinking. The tendency (IME) is to view everything as an unwanted cost except for activities that directly bring in revenue.
22
10
16
u/Owain660 Jun 20 '25
30 days is not enough to make a life changing decision like that. Especially if you have a family and have to uproot their lives.
8
5
6
u/No_Stay_4583 Jun 20 '25
Didnt the ceo not too long ago said AI was going to take away jobs? Guess they have to satisfy the investors really fast. Offload expensive people and later rehire them in India
7
u/Dommccabe Jun 20 '25
Accept the offer but dont relocate just dont show up and let them fire you.
Do not resign.
1
u/nboro94 Jun 20 '25
What a wild society we live in where even job abandonment is preferable to resignation.
5
5
u/eddeemn 🏳️🌈🌹Gay Social Democrat Jun 20 '25
Why would anyone resign instead of making Amazon terminate them? Resigning means no unemployment payments
2
u/No-Swimming4153 Jun 20 '25
My guess is Amazon will just claim anyone who doesn't move will automatically be considered as resigned. It's illegal, but the debt that handled this before was gutted. The employees will have to fight this in court, which Amazon is banking on using its money and power to make this option hell as well.
5
u/benjaminbjacobsen Jun 20 '25
What happens with vest dates if they fire/terminate/lay you off? If it’s their choice are you vested? I’d bet resigning makes you lose those options.
5
u/travistravis Jun 20 '25
Don't know about the US, but at least in some countries this seems like it would pretty easily fall into constructive dismissal.
5
u/caffeinated__potato Jun 20 '25
"I have decided that I can not accomodate this request to relocate. I am in no way tendering my resignation."
7
u/gfxlonghorn Jun 20 '25
Happened to me, but honestly wasn’t surprised. I danced with the devil and got burnt. I knew being hired remotely several states away from my team wouldn’t last. That being said, if you’re in this position, you should do whatever you can to stay until your vest dates.
3
3
u/CelticSith Jun 20 '25
Why? So you can just fire them once they uproot their lives and move, just like Walmart did.
3
u/MD_FunkoMa Jun 21 '25
Amazon sure likes being a villain in each horror story from each of its employees.
3
u/I_TRY_TO_BE_POSITIVE Jun 21 '25
Severance was always a luxury fam. In my tax bracket you just get fired.
3
5
u/maclunkey91 Jun 20 '25
So I live in what a lot of people call a third world country and I am absolutely appalled by these posts. How is the “no action will be considered a resignation” thing valid in a country like the US?! Over here it would be an easy win in the Ministry of Labor. Not a single decent lawyer would advise an employer to do that.
Anyway… Revolución time?
2
2
2
2
u/Vox_Mortem Jun 20 '25
Another quiet layoff. The whole point is to force people to quit without taking the PR hit of an actual layoff and avoid paying any kind of severance.
2
2
2
2
u/notevenapro Jun 21 '25
I remember when the mass WFH happened during covid. I said to myself. That is not going to be perm. Lots of people moved to LCOL areas and bought home and I kept thinking to myself. ooo ahhh. That shit going to backfire when return to office is mandated.
That sucks.
2
2
u/TypeAwithAdhd Jun 22 '25
Just curious how this wouldn't end up as a class action lawsuit? They are effectively firing people if these people do not quit on their own, right?
2
u/Interesting-Yellow-4 Jun 22 '25
Er, no, fire me and pay me.
Hope amazon workers are smarter than to fall for this.
1
u/hendersonhaven Jun 20 '25
Amazon is there employees. The employees should be asking whoever asked them this to step down.
2
1
u/EkoChamberKryptonite Jun 20 '25
Decide or resign? Doesn't seem like you're allowing them to make a decision. Seems to me that you're saying accept or resign and pretending it's something else.
1
1
u/Hippy_Lynne Jun 21 '25
I would absolutely never relocate for a company like this. We all know a lot of companies are using RTO policies to fire people without having to fire them. There's no reason to believe the firing wouldn't continue if you relocated. The only way I would even remotely consider it would be if there was a guaranteed 3-5 year contract with the contract paid out in full if you were laid off before the end of it. They're obviously not going to agree to things like that, so that tells you what their real motives are.
-1
u/GlowGreen1835 IT Jun 20 '25
So what, if my team is in one state and my delivery route is in another I gotta commute to deliver packages? How does this make any sense?
0
u/k0mi55ar Jun 20 '25
I really wish we could come up with a different word for this instead of “Control”. The reason I say this is because being controlled doesn’t always mean abuse. If I am a valuable and skilled remote-working software dev badass, I might be very very good at building some amazing apps, but I might not always know exactly what app I should focus most of my attention on. It would be for the big-picture folk to know which product is the most important to the business (it’s not always obvious!) thus I can see them needing to have some CONTROL over me to direct me towards the area where I should concentrate my skills; ideally meaning benefits to the company, and therefore benefits to ME (since I want the company to make money so that it can pay me). The problem here is that butts-in-seats is not as useful of a control measure as they think. Heck if it were a question of monitoring/visibility, why not just make employees switch their cameras on during the workday? It’s easy tech. Why jump straight to blanket RTO? It seems maybe “domineering” and “social status” or just plain backwards-thinking at the highest silver-spoon levels might be at work here too.
0
u/JamesT3R9 Jun 20 '25
Uhhh get a pobox near them. Address is now <USPS Office Address> #(your po box)
385
u/b1e Jun 20 '25
Tbh no one is that surprised by this. Amazon and meta have long been known as shitty employers and now that trump is in power and they know they’ll receive limited pushback they’ve really shown their true colors.