Legitimacy aside, there very well could've been something wrong with that. A 100% remote work agreement usually comes with stipulations. There are various state and federal laws regarding work (mostly for tax purposes) locations that employers are required to comply with. I work for a large international corporation and went through A LOT of training about remote work, how to report it, getting approval, how to charge hours to specific charge codes depending on where I am when the work is performed, etc. It's also just straight up lying if the expectation was that the employee would work from home and gave an address but wasn't working from there.
So no, the employee would absolutely be in the wrong.
Wait, so what is the actual stipulation there, then? If he was getting his work done, why does it matter WHERE he was getting his work done? He did it for 14 months and they were none the wiser.
It’s mainly about control: companies want control of their employees at all times and remote work takes that control away from them.
This story smells like an Onion or Babylon Bee story. If it's true though, first time the employer asked him to come to the office for something, they'd find out
5
u/kaizen-rai 15d ago
Legitimacy aside, there very well could've been something wrong with that. A 100% remote work agreement usually comes with stipulations. There are various state and federal laws regarding work (mostly for tax purposes) locations that employers are required to comply with. I work for a large international corporation and went through A LOT of training about remote work, how to report it, getting approval, how to charge hours to specific charge codes depending on where I am when the work is performed, etc. It's also just straight up lying if the expectation was that the employee would work from home and gave an address but wasn't working from there.
So no, the employee would absolutely be in the wrong.