4 ms·
> They want to be "fair" to everyone This is the explanation I hear most often, but when you examine it, it makes no sense. Otherwise you would need everyone t
by dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
> They want to be "fair" to everyone
This is the explanation I hear most often, but when you examine it, it makes no sense. Otherwise you would need everyone to make the same money, which makes no sense either. People are different, their duties are different, some jobs are better suited for remote work than others - putting everyone in the same basket is plain stupid.
- walshemj 6y agoThe trouble is from an IR (industrial relations) perspective that actually can be problem if one group perceives that some other group has something they don't have. (Brigit's Jones Smaug Marrieds ) Also how would you audit this "oh her she's friends with manger x so she gets o work from home etc"
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y agoIt depends. For example I have my set of duties written in a table (a fairy long one). I added a column with the "Can be done remotely?" heading and marked the respective entries (most of them - the exceptions were things like meetings and business trips). The same can be done with all employees: the ones who have tasks that don't absolutely require their presence should be able to work remotely during a pandemic. Besides, by now it should be clear who is efficiently working remotely and who isn't. If there are problems, this should be a signal to reexamine the situation of a given employee. Everything should be based on clear metrics known to everybody. Riskng other people's (or, more likely, their relatives') lives for a wrong purpose is plain silly.