> Then fire them.

That's exactly what will probably happen if they don't comply. I think giving people an opportunity to comply before firing is a good move.

No, it's a terrible idea.

The ones that don't have any other options will stay ( you retain a higher percentage of people who are not top performers ), the rest that you would want to keep leave ( the best employees can just get another remote job right away )

This is the classic problem with voluntary buyouts and other discretionary layoffs - you only keep the people without other options.

It happens on its own over time as well.

See http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-d... for a fuller description.

I think he meant fire them if they don't provide value. If they're remote and do provide value keep them remote.

Wha?

So they were wrong to give them a warning that they are expected to relocate to an office? They should've just fired them? That's really how you feel?

They're wrong to equate being remote with not producing value. If people are not producing value for the company, sure, fire them. If they are doing well, then why force them to relocate? What's the business sense in that?

Opportunity cost?

They have $X in their budget. If the remote employees are producing $Y value, where $Y>$X, then they are earning their keep. But suppose Yahoo believes they can yield 1.5Y for the same $X budget by having on-site workers?

It's not like companies are (or should be) altruistic democracies. I can see why a person affected by this would be sore, but they don't really have a valid gripe IMO. I'm personally a fan of at-will employment.

it's not a question of screwing off; it's that productive team dynamics are genuinely harder for remote employees to achieve.

Good thing nobody told Linus Torvalds...

My own experience, anecdotal as it may be, is that this is entirely untrue. What matters is communication, not facetime.