https://www.reworked.co/employee-experience/return-to-office-mandates-layoffs-in-sheeps-clothing/

Companies demand employees come into the office for many legitimate reasons. But in some cases, it appears to be a tactic to force employees out.

Companies, large and small, are asking employees to return to the office at least a few days a week. But in some cases, these return-to-office (RTO) policies appear to be a passive-aggressive approach to eliminate roles, rather than doing layoffs.

Case in point: AT&T recently said it would require thousands of managers from across the country to work in person at just nine locations. One manager referred to the move as “a layoff wolf in return-to-office sheep’s clothing.”  

Dell stated employees who chose to work fully remotely won’t be eligible for promotion. Google plans to factor an employee’s in-person attendance into their performance evaluation. 

While there are several reasons companies could be using RTO to avoid actively laying people off, Maurice Cayer, lecturer and coordinator of the master of science human resources program at the University of New Haven, said it could backfire.

“It’s a blunt instrument,” he said of the tactic. 

A Disconnect Between Employers and Employees 

Research from the University of Pittsburgh found companies use RTO mandates at times for “power grabbing and blaming employees for poor performance,” yet the results harm employee satisfaction and fail to improve performance. 

Still, 90% of organizations plan to implement RTO policies this year, and 80% will track in-office attendance, such as via badge swipes and desk sensors. 

Most employees prefer remote or hybrid work. Nearly 50% said they would quit their jobs if their employer mandated a full-time RTO policy, according to the Integrated Benefits Institute.  

Employees’ feelings about in-office work are clear. So why are companies choosing to enforce such an unpopular — and ineffective — tactic? 

One reason is that some organizations, especially tech companies, overstaffed as they rebounded from the pandemic and now have too many employees, Cayer said. The introduction of new technology, like artificial intelligence, also might be behind a reduction in staff. 

Others may be using RTO as a test. The mandate in those cases screens employees to determine “who’s the most committed to the organization” and open to a more traditional work model, said Colleen Flaherty Manchester, a professor in the Work and Organizations department at the University of Minnesota. 

The tactic highlights the disconnect between employers’ perceptions of flexible work and employees’ desires to work remotely for personal or productivity reasons, she said. 

Requiring employees to return to work in person may have some advantages, such as improved communication and more opportunities for mentorship, but organizations typically haven’t experienced extensive productivity issues with remote work, said Carrie Urrutia, a labor and employment attorney at Eastman & Smith in Toledo, Ohio. 

“Many companies simply want things to revert to the way they were before COVID,” she said. 

The Consequences of Using RTO to Trim Staff 

Companies risk losing their best people with RTO policies, said Cayer. 

“Organizations are placing bets, and they’re willing to live with the consequences of losing some highly desirable people in the process,” he explained. “But, maybe they’ll make up for it by having people who are engaged at work.” 

Quietly laying off workers under the RTO guise could anger employees and damage an organization’s reputation, which might impact future hiring and meeting business goals, Urrutia added. 

Yet the approach is attractive to companies. “It could be a less-costly way to achieve a goal of reducing the workforce without a formal reduction in force,” said Urrutia.

Employees who quit as a result of RTO mandates wouldn’t be eligible for unemployment compensation and typically wouldn’t receive a severance package as opposed to those who were laid off, she explained. “Generally speaking, employees who voluntarily resign are not entitled to those benefits.”

However companies would be better served implementing hiring freezes or enabling more flexibility, she argued. Urrutia said organizations should examine their current remote or hybird work arrangements and assess what’s working for them and employees. If RTO is mandated, they should clearly articulate the business reasons why it’s necessary and why remote work isn’t working. 

“Aim to find a sweet spot that achieves the manager’s goals of in-person connection for innovation and group productivity, yet also meets some of the needs of employees,” Manchester said. 

Are Quiet Layoffs Legal? 

As a rule, employees don’t have a legal right to work from home, so employers are free to require in-person work as a condition of employment, Urrutia said. Workers therefore typically don’t have legal recourse if they feel a RTO mandate is designed to make them quit.

One exception is if an employee had a contract that specifically stipulated they’re allowed to work remotely, Urrutia explained. Another is unionized employees, where RTO could be a subject of collective bargaining.  

Organizations also must ensure their RTO decisions aren’t discriminatory or unfairly impact groups protected under the Civil Rights Act, Cayer said. The law prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability and medical history. 

Employers are also required to provide reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act or Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and that might include allowing remote work, Urrutia added. 

“Employees who work from home are not a protected classification, but many employees who work from home are in protected classifications,” she said. 

Still, employees could file a lawsuit if they feel they RTO policies unfairly led them to quit, Cayer added. Organizations can choose to protest the suit. “A lot of times that leads into some settlement,” he said.