RTO or return-to-office initiatives post-COVID in the last few years have not exactly been easy. Some companies–mostly well established conglomerates and old school corporations–have had a tough time adapting to the new ways of working, but some have at least tried to meet in the middle of status quo and innovation.
Unfortunately, other companies have gone to extremes to get back to their ideas of ‘business as usual’ and it hasn’t been a good look. In November 2023, Amazon announced that if employees did not adhere to their return to office mandate, they may not get promoted. More recently in March of this year, Dell had an internal memo leaked announcing that employees would be passed over for promotions as well if they did not return to office.
The newest, most surprising and harshest mandate is now coming from Patagonia. The storied sustainable outdoors brand recently gave 90 remote, U.S. customer experience team members notice on June 25 to decide to either relocate to live within 60 miles of one of seven “hubs” (locations in cities across the U.S.) or find a new job. On top of the jarring news, team members had 72 hours to decide. Those who chose to leave the company would be offered severance packages, but the scenario still seems extreme.
Patagonia stands by this decision saying the move is in order to “improve team culture and support business needs,” but placing valued employees in such precarious situations seems like the exact opposite. What does that do to team morale in the long term? Why do companies make such drastic shifts that ultimately disrupt all aspects of the business with unknown consequences on their workforce down the line? What does that say about a company who had built a reputation on work/life balance, but turns to making personnel decisions that seem to benefit shareholders over employees?
This seems to be an unfortunate trend as the job market continues to favor employers. With mass layoffs still happening in major industries; inflation remaining high and wages staying low; as well as the cost of living forcing individuals to either take any job they can find to stay afloat, or remain in roles they are no longer satisfied in just to pay their bills, employers will enact policies that may not be necessarily in the long term best interests of their employees.
However, at some point as it always does, the market will correct itself and the balance of power will return. As companies innovate and increase profits, they will need to hire again and compete over talent. At that point, is it better to be a business that has twisted itself into knots to take advantage of a down market in order to keep shareholders happy, or be a business that took incremental steps to protect not only itself but it’s employees in a time of a tough economy as to not tarnish their reputation, and be the most inviting option when it’s time to open its doors to top talent looking for a new home? Only time will tell.
Check out the article from Entrepreneur detailing Patagonia’s return-to-work policy that’s ruffling a lot of feathers: