3 ms·

There are various reasons why that may not be the case. For example, the employee may have had the misfortune of recently having been made redundant and subseq

by Leynos 16y ago

There are various reasons why that may not be the case. For example, the employee may have had the misfortune of recently having been made redundant and subsequently spent their savings and accumulated debt whilst searching for a new job.

tedunangst 16y ago
And maybe they don't have a car to get to work, or shiny shoes to match their suit, or a dozen other things which cost more than the computer they probably already have.
- Leynos 16y ago
  Suits can be found in charity shops and shoes are cheap if you buy them in end of season sales. Whether or not you drive to work is down to necessity I guess. For some it's a necessary evil, especially if they live and work a long way apart. I don't really see how this applies. Some people are fortunate that they may be able to afford to buy a computer for work, others less so. It's not a one size fits all situation, and whether or not the speed of someone's workstation would make a difference to their job hasn't much bearing on it. Of course, the article is confused between people working via remote desktop and people providing their own compute power, which kind of muddies the topic. I have done work in the past on my own machine of course, but I think for companies to come to expect this is placing an unhealthy burden on the employee. Personal machines are not necessarily reliable, nor can they often be repaired or replaced at short notice. If I was required to take work home, I would prefer to have a machine dedicated to that purpose, and I certainly wouldn't be happy about the idea of having to provide it myself. Where remote access is concerned, it becomes more a matter of preference. A faster machine in this instance is unlikely to make much difference, so this becomes less of an issue. Here an employee providing their own machine would be doing it more for personal preference or comfort.

by Leynos 16y ago

tedunangst 16y ago

And maybe they don't have a car to get to work, or shiny shoes to match their suit, or a dozen other things which cost more than the computer they probably already have.

Leynos 16y ago
Suits can be found in charity shops and shoes are cheap if you buy them in end of season sales. Whether or not you drive to work is down to necessity I guess. For some it's a necessary evil, especially if they live and work a long way apart. I don't really see how this applies. Some people are fortunate that they may be able to afford to buy a computer for work, others less so. It's not a one size fits all situation, and whether or not the speed of someone's workstation would make a difference to their job hasn't much bearing on it. Of course, the article is confused between people working via remote desktop and people providing their own compute power, which kind of muddies the topic. I have done work in the past on my own machine of course, but I think for companies to come to expect this is placing an unhealthy burden on the employee. Personal machines are not necessarily reliable, nor can they often be repaired or replaced at short notice. If I was required to take work home, I would prefer to have a machine dedicated to that purpose, and I certainly wouldn't be happy about the idea of having to provide it myself. Where remote access is concerned, it becomes more a matter of preference. A faster machine in this instance is unlikely to make much difference, so this becomes less of an issue. Here an employee providing their own machine would be doing it more for personal preference or comfort.