Economy

I believe that these back to site mandates are a means for these companies to have quiet layoffs.

The only group benefiting from them reliably is the commercial real estate leasing sector and certainly not climate change. Commuting accounts for up to 25% of the excess and discretionary emissions.

Since in her case she was hired in NY and her station was in CA. I would think she could make a contract dispute. But, once again. Who’s benefited by keeping that station in CA? My guess is someone who doesn’t want a long commute or holds a financial interest in keeping the site in CA. Which is obviously more than whatever 45% of their employees were providing.