Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic contributing to the dissemination of alternative work models such as fully remote or hybrid work models. The present study focused on these 2 types of unplanned changes in the working environment. The conservation of resources theory, the first aim of this study was to examine the predictive role of resource losses and gains since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in job burnout. Moreover, the authors investigated how non-remote, remote, and hybrid employees differ in resource losses and gains and job burnout. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional online comparative study was conducted a year after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondents provided sociodemographic data, reported their current work model, and completed validated measures of resource losses and gains and job burnout: the Conservation of Resources Evaluation and the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory. Based on the data collected from 1000 working adults from the Polish population, the authors tested the differences in losses and gains of different categories of resources and job burnout components between the 3 groups of employees representing distinct working models, i.e., non-remote, hybrid, and remote. Results: In general, the associations of losses and gains with job burnout subscales have been confirmed, regardless of the level of analysis of losses and gains. The authors’ findings indicated that hybrid workers experienced significantly higher resource losses and gains (both in general and in different domains) in comparison to non-remote and remote workers. In turn, non-remote employees scored significantly higher on disengagement, which is one of the job burnout components. Conclusions: Hybrid workers experienced the highest levels of both resource losses and gains during the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to non-remote and remote workers, suggesting that this form of working arrangement involves the greatest changes in different life domains, bringing both positive and negative consequences for the employee. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2023;36(2):229–49