![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Ask a Manager: my employee relocated and didn’t tell me
I run an online business and we have not worked in office since March 2020. Like many Covid-remote workers, we saw some living situations shift: moving in with family, caring for parents, working in remote locations. That worked very well for us and I'm grateful. Our current return-to-work date is before the end of the year, when everyone is expected to be in office three days a week.
One of my employees, Margot, is immunocompromised and left NYC (where we’re based) to be in Texas and live with her dad. She got really sick every winter in NYC (pre-Covid, I had no idea about her compromised immune system; she didn’t want anyone to pity her) and her doctor said that with Covid, she should not live in cold-weather climates; the vulnerability is too great. Margot kept me posted at every step: when she wanted to be in Texas temporarily, when her doctor recommended it long-term, when she gave up her apartment. She knew she was taking a risk, because our company’s policy on working in Texas wasn’t defined, but she had multiple conversation with me and with HR to ensure that everyone was on the same page.
Another employee, Frank, moved to Cleveland. Unlike Margot, I learned about Frank’s plans after the fact. On a Zoom call, I noted a different background. “Oh, we’re in Cleveland for a while. We’re close to my wife’s family and staying in an AirBnb.” As Covid extended, the background changed again: “We got a short-term lease. We weren’t thrilled with our apartment anyway.” Then, I learned through others on my staff that his wife has gotten a job there. That he’s updated his license at the Ohio DMV. When I asked him about this, he said yes, he would like to stay in Cleveland but was waiting to see what our policy was; others at our parent company were in similar situations.
It took corporate a long time to weigh in — they surveyed the circumstances of everyone at the company, at all of our brands — and the bottom line is this: Those brands that allow an employee to work outside our headquarter cities must seek permission and pay the annual fees to incorporate — about $20K, which will hit my brand’s bottom line.
In short, I’m cool with doing that for Margot but not for Frank. Margot and Frank have very different roles: Margo is behind the scenes and handles organizational issues for our brand, but Frank’s role has a profile in our industry and it reads very weird for him to be based in Cleveland — a city that has nothing to do with what we do. The uncertainty of Covid really impacted/slowed my reaction, as did Frank’s boiling-frog approach to relocation without discussion or even a heads up, but now I’m clear: I don’t want his role to be based in Cleveland and I don’t want to pay an additional $20K a year for his decision.
So: Yes for Margot, no for Frank — and I’m willing to lose him as an employee. Am I being fair?
It’s not inherently unreasonable to decide that you’re willing to do it for one employee but not another, or for one job but not another. Different jobs have different needs, and some jobs can be based anywhere and some can’t. Some employees are just as effective when they’re based remotely and some aren’t. And some employees contribute enough that they’re worth paying an extra $20K a year to accommodate their move, and some aren’t.
If it really doesn’t make sense for Frank’s job to be based in Cleveland, it’s not unfair to make that your decision.
But before you do, I’d really interrogate your reasons. Is it genuinely about Cleveland, or is it about how Frank handled his move? If he had kept you informed every step of the way like Margot did, would you be making a different decision now?
If the reality is that yeah, you’d feel differently if he had operated more like Margot did, I’d cut him some slack there. The last year and a half has been , and a lot of people didn’t realize that “we’re working remotely for now” isn’t the same thing as “you can work from wherever you want.” Even aside from management concerns with that, not everyone knows that there are legal and tax reasons why an employer might not allow it — if an employer has employees living in a different state, they have business nexus there and may be required to pay taxes in that state, set up workers comp insurance there, and more. So many people relocated during the pandemic without realizing that (or with their companies turning a temporary blind eye to it because of the pandemic) that it’s easy to see how someone could conclude this is a thing people can just go ahead and do now.
It doesn’t sound like Frank tried to hide his move from you; he just didn’t proactively volunteer it. When you inquired, it doesn’t sound like he tried to avoid telling you; he told you he hoped to stay in Cleveland but was waiting to hear what your policy was. That’s pretty reasonable.
You still get to decide that the job just can’t be in Cleveland. You also get to decide that Frank isn’t valuable enough to you to pay $20,000 more every year to keep him. But if your decision is mostly driven by annoyance that he didn’t communicate as much as Margot did, I’d let that go*.
*Unless it’s part of a pattern with Frank not communicating enough. If it is, that’s not likely to improve when he’s working remotely from another state.
One of my employees, Margot, is immunocompromised and left NYC (where we’re based) to be in Texas and live with her dad. She got really sick every winter in NYC (pre-Covid, I had no idea about her compromised immune system; she didn’t want anyone to pity her) and her doctor said that with Covid, she should not live in cold-weather climates; the vulnerability is too great. Margot kept me posted at every step: when she wanted to be in Texas temporarily, when her doctor recommended it long-term, when she gave up her apartment. She knew she was taking a risk, because our company’s policy on working in Texas wasn’t defined, but she had multiple conversation with me and with HR to ensure that everyone was on the same page.
Another employee, Frank, moved to Cleveland. Unlike Margot, I learned about Frank’s plans after the fact. On a Zoom call, I noted a different background. “Oh, we’re in Cleveland for a while. We’re close to my wife’s family and staying in an AirBnb.” As Covid extended, the background changed again: “We got a short-term lease. We weren’t thrilled with our apartment anyway.” Then, I learned through others on my staff that his wife has gotten a job there. That he’s updated his license at the Ohio DMV. When I asked him about this, he said yes, he would like to stay in Cleveland but was waiting to see what our policy was; others at our parent company were in similar situations.
It took corporate a long time to weigh in — they surveyed the circumstances of everyone at the company, at all of our brands — and the bottom line is this: Those brands that allow an employee to work outside our headquarter cities must seek permission and pay the annual fees to incorporate — about $20K, which will hit my brand’s bottom line.
In short, I’m cool with doing that for Margot but not for Frank. Margot and Frank have very different roles: Margo is behind the scenes and handles organizational issues for our brand, but Frank’s role has a profile in our industry and it reads very weird for him to be based in Cleveland — a city that has nothing to do with what we do. The uncertainty of Covid really impacted/slowed my reaction, as did Frank’s boiling-frog approach to relocation without discussion or even a heads up, but now I’m clear: I don’t want his role to be based in Cleveland and I don’t want to pay an additional $20K a year for his decision.
So: Yes for Margot, no for Frank — and I’m willing to lose him as an employee. Am I being fair?
It’s not inherently unreasonable to decide that you’re willing to do it for one employee but not another, or for one job but not another. Different jobs have different needs, and some jobs can be based anywhere and some can’t. Some employees are just as effective when they’re based remotely and some aren’t. And some employees contribute enough that they’re worth paying an extra $20K a year to accommodate their move, and some aren’t.
If it really doesn’t make sense for Frank’s job to be based in Cleveland, it’s not unfair to make that your decision.
But before you do, I’d really interrogate your reasons. Is it genuinely about Cleveland, or is it about how Frank handled his move? If he had kept you informed every step of the way like Margot did, would you be making a different decision now?
If the reality is that yeah, you’d feel differently if he had operated more like Margot did, I’d cut him some slack there. The last year and a half has been , and a lot of people didn’t realize that “we’re working remotely for now” isn’t the same thing as “you can work from wherever you want.” Even aside from management concerns with that, not everyone knows that there are legal and tax reasons why an employer might not allow it — if an employer has employees living in a different state, they have business nexus there and may be required to pay taxes in that state, set up workers comp insurance there, and more. So many people relocated during the pandemic without realizing that (or with their companies turning a temporary blind eye to it because of the pandemic) that it’s easy to see how someone could conclude this is a thing people can just go ahead and do now.
It doesn’t sound like Frank tried to hide his move from you; he just didn’t proactively volunteer it. When you inquired, it doesn’t sound like he tried to avoid telling you; he told you he hoped to stay in Cleveland but was waiting to hear what your policy was. That’s pretty reasonable.
You still get to decide that the job just can’t be in Cleveland. You also get to decide that Frank isn’t valuable enough to you to pay $20,000 more every year to keep him. But if your decision is mostly driven by annoyance that he didn’t communicate as much as Margot did, I’d let that go*.
*Unless it’s part of a pattern with Frank not communicating enough. If it is, that’s not likely to improve when he’s working remotely from another state.
no subject