Shouldn't businesses abide by contracts, even verbal ones? If you were hired in office, went remote and then RTO now I understand your viewpoint. But if the company hired you for a remote role that's part of the contract, and RTO is breach of contract.

> if the company hired you for a remote role that's part of the contract, and RTO is breach of contract

Sure, and the contract should be terminated.

Within the context of this article, learning you may be funding sanctioned activities is a valid reason to revisit your business assumptions.

>Sure, and the contract should be terminated.

So in your view all contracts should be meaningless if one party doesn't want it anymore? Do we even need contracts then?

Sorry, I was writing from the perspective of US employees, 99% whom do not have employment contracts (at least not regarding the length of employment). It is usually “at-will” employment, where either party can choose to walk away anytime.

Yes, promissory estoppel is a thing.

It's "just business" to the company, it's very personal to anyone affected by it.

I find "it's just business" and "it's not personal" to be some of the most insulting and gaslighting phrases in the English language, by how they dehumanize the person at the receiving end of them.

If I stop shopping at a specific vendor, I am doing the same thing. The person operating the farmer's market stand or a food truck or whatever is a human too, but it's perfectly fine to say that you will no longer patronize that business.

People are affected by loss of income, and it is tragic. I don't think a buyer ceasing to buy from a seller is injustice, regardless if the relationship is employer/employee or customer/business.

It is society that should be providing the stability necessary for business to just be business. If a business makes a mistake, it is not unjust for the business to correct course which could involve changing its terms with its vendors (including employees).

The analogy falls apart somewhat when the vendor is prohibited from selling their product to others and the buyer provides their healthcare. Employment relationships are different than other kinds of business relationships and the law recognizes that.

As I understand, non competes are unenforceable in the US due to recent FTC actions. And employers pay for a portion of health insurance premiums with pre tax income. This tax benefit can and should be legislated away so that all individuals have the ability or inability to pay for health insurance with pre tax income.

In regards to when an employee or employer can terminate buying or selling labor, US law outside of Montana is “at-will”, meaning either party can stop buying or selling labor anytime they want, barring a contract that stipulates otherwise.

I was referencing exclusivity clauses rather than noncompetes, and the vastly different nature of employment law from other contractual arrangements.

Sorry to be blunt, but... so? Take the phrase away and it becomes "a business decision" which is just as impersonal, but that's an honest reflection of how decisions are made. Are you arguing against businesses making decisions or just the language?

"Unjust" is really just a matter of personal taste. Your claim that it's just has no more validity than a claim that it's unjust.

Saying "it's just business" is just a canned phrase for minimizing a general dismissive attitude toward the welfare of workers.