You don't even have to say yes. Just refuse to relocate it, and when they say you have to resign, just don't.

But if 50% resign because they think they have to, that's 50% less unemployment Amazon has to pay

No. The solution is to call their bullshitnout.

A company can’t hire you to work from one location (regardless if it’s WFH or not,) and then unilaterally decide to have you relocate.

“You can apply internally” or anything else that is a new contract doesn’t matter. They’re changing the terms of employment, and they can’t do that unilaterally.

The choices are to agree with their new terms, accept the “out” of taking another position in your area, or reject them. They can use what ever semantics they want, but it’s still a layoff.

Forced voluntary resignation no less. Definitely sounds like termination to me.

The specific term, for anyone wondering (or who may be facing this) is "constructive dismissal". If your employer significantly changes the terms of employment (hours, location, job duties, etc) to make you quit, it is legally viewed similar to firing.

It's not about the benefits of going to an office. It's all about corporate realestate. Companies and rich people have a lot of money invested in office buildings and they are all losing value.

I think for a lot of engineers, their productivity would be much higher at home. In the office you have way more distractions and time wasters, like coworkers, physical meetings, etc. Even if employees at home are scrolling social media, they're going to procrastinate in office too, just in a different way, whether that's just sitting and doing nothing or going out for lunch on a really long break.

Yeah this is the part I don't get. We are always arguing about whether productivity is highest with wfh or wfo. But we never discuss what maximizes people's happiness. Which seems more important to me, why are we doing any of this anyway? Capitalism I guess.

I understand the value of working in an office

I don't, but I'm also a sysadmin. Offices are my hell.

Why not save money on office space by letting those employees to work from their home?

Because they can't control them at home.

They bought a ton of real estate over the years.

Then places like Seattle were literally falling a part without the added cash cow of commuters stuck in bumper to bumper traffic for 16 hours of a workday.

My guess is taxes.

Control. Why do republican men tell women how to live their lives when it doesn't change their own?

Some of the same insecure power hungry losers are high up managers in these companies

Amazon employees who refuse to relocate near their teams' "hub" offices will either have to find a new job internally or leave the company through a "voluntary resignation."

Amazon started enforcing its so-called "return-to-hub" policy in recent weeks, according to an internal email and Slack messages obtained by Insider. Hubs are the central locations assigned to each individual team — employees will have to work out of those hubs instead of any office nearest to their current city.

One manager declared hubs in Seattle, New York, Houston, and Austin, Texas, for their team, according to one Slack message. It said those who refuse to relocate to one of those hubs will either have to transfer to a new team or they will be considered a "voluntary resignation."

The move is part of Amazon's effort to encourage more in-person work. Under the initial return-to-office policy, Amazon assigned offices for most individual employees, but not the whole team. Some employees told Insider that made office work pointless because many still had to use video calls to connect with their teammates spread across the country. Andy Jassy, the CEO of Amazon, said in his RTO announcement earlier this year that "collaborating and inventing is easier and more effective when we're in person."

In an email to Insider, Amazon's spokesperson, Brad Glasser, said there's "more energy, collaboration, and connections happening since we've been working together at least three days per week."

"We continue to look at the best ways to bring more teams together in the same locations, and we'll communicate directly with employees as we make decisions that affect them," Glasser said.

The new policy comes as a shock to some employees, especially those who were hired for virtual jobs or who moved to remote locations during the pandemic. Prior to the RTO announcement in February, Amazon said in a statement that it didn't plan on forcing people back to the office, while it would continue "experimenting, learning, and adjusting for a while."

"I have seen many posts that people are asked to relocate to one of the hubs in the past week, regardless of virtual status or currently assigned cities/countries. People that had been approved to move to a different country with virtual location were asked to move back to one of the hubs in the US, not to mention people in other cities in the US," one Slack message read.

Employees who refuse to join a hub are given 60 days to find a new team that allows them to stay in their current city, according to Slack messages and an internal email sent Tuesday. If unsuccessful after 60 days, it's considered a voluntary resignation. Most employees were told to make their decision by August.

Amazon's spokesperson said relocation benefits will be available, and the company will make exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Some roles, including sales and customer support, may also continue to be remote.

Still, the change only adds to the frustration Amazon employees face. Earlier this year, over 30,000 Amazon employees joined an internal Slack channel shortly after the RTO announcement and signed a petition to demand a reversal of the mandate. Amazon's HR chief, Beth Galetti, flatly rejected the petition in March, as Insider previously reported.

"I recognize this is completely unethical, not human-centric, and doesn't 'strive to be Earth's best employer,'" another person wrote in Slack. "It's so end-game dystopian. None of us knows how to process this news."