> But for some Googlers, his relocation email, which was sent on June 29 and hasn't been previously reported, illustrated the inequities of the company's system for deciding remote work.<p>But the inequality already existed. Someone a few years into their career doesn’t have the title or compensation of some distinguished engineer, director, or VP.<p>I don’t see a reason why that model wouldn’t extend towards on site vs remote work.<p>If the company values you enough, they’ll let you work remotely. If they’re willing to part ways, then by definition they believe they can find someone else to fill that role. And nothing will change unless the employee market collectively is turns out to be against working on site.<p>As an aside — I always take these kinds of articles with a grain of salt. My own employer was in the news over “angry engineers”. It was three to five people who vocally spoke on the subject, but CNET and some other news sites reported it as if hundreds of engineers were about to revolt or quit their jobs. A lot of hyperbole and sensationalism.