6 ms·

Everyone would be going back into the office... if there wasn't a shortage of skilled workers to fill positions. As the labor market is, companies have to bend

by ethbr0 5y ago

Everyone would be going back into the office... if there wasn't a shortage of skilled workers to fill positions. As the labor market is, companies have to bend to some of labor's demands in order to attract and retain talent. This isn't the worst state of affairs.

viraptor 5y ago
You say that like the company's purpose is to be as bad to employees as possible. I get where the idea comes from, but that's not true everywhere and companies did remote work before it was forced on them. It doesn't have to be "bend to some of labor's demands", but rather "choose most effective hiring and working strategy".
- glhaynes 5y ago
  >You say that like the company's purpose is to be as bad to employees as possible. Where? I don’t see that in what they wrote.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - viraptor 5y ago
    > Everyone would be going back into the office... if there wasn't a shortage of skilled workers to fill positions. A different way to read that is: people would do as told and not ask to work remotely because they could get replaced. But that applies only if the company does not care about the employees and wants cogs instead.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Alternative rationale: institutional inertia prevents change. Remote work is a big change. Ergo, absent an exteral driver of change, companies will continue doing what they've always done.
- ryanSrich 5y ago
  This is a failure of the job to be done though. The JTBD for the execs at these companies forcing in person work isn’t to be efficient. It’s to make themselves feel good. They feel better when they see asses in seats. It’s really that simple. If efficiency had literally anything to do with it we would have all been remote since 2005.
  - granshaw 5y ago
    Misread as assets in seats. Still works
  - underwater 5y ago
    I think that's a little simplistic. Lots of people are just as productive, or more productive, at home as they are in an office. But I've also had a lot of other people tell me they struggle to work remotely. It really depends on the individual, where they are in their career, and what type of project they're working on.
- thelastknowngod 5y ago
  I think there is a significant amount of companies (and a substantial portion of the government) in the US that operates on a philosophy like "How much can we extract from people before there is any push back?" It is a nation entirely built on micro transactions.. I am sitting in an airport right now. Baggage carts are free to use. The last time I flew in the US it was a $5 fee. Why? Because it's just enough to extract value from us but not enough for anyone to complain in a significant way. I don't think that companies are deliberately trying to be awful to workers. They are just using the standard American model.. "How much can we get away with?" The country is in desperate need of widespread unionization efforts.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Do you think this is a uniquely American issue? Having lived in other countries it’s worse.
  - Mertax 5y ago
    I don’t think all companies are as adversarial towards their employees as this makes it sound. Great companies recognize they benefit when they are proactively trying to do what’s best for the employee as well as the company. Companies that I’ve seen do it well have an executive level employee advocacy position. Typically in a human resource department, but less concerned about the policy and regulatory requirements and is specifically tasked to be a champion/voice for employees.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    > The country is in desperate need of widespread unionization efforts. No thanks. I don’t like working with clock punchers nor do I want to get paid as poorly as programmers in Europe/Canada. Until unions in the US stop prioritizing seniority over competence for pay, they need to stay the hell away from this industry.
    - underwater 5y ago
      Good pay is nice, but it's not the only variable to the equation. I worked received great pay in the US, but made the decision to return to Australia. I have some regrets, but the lifestyle I get from not being in the Bay Area pretty much offsets any pay difference. What I miss most is the scope and pace of the work and the incredibly intelligent people I got to work with. Thankfully I'm beginning to see the genesis of this in my local market.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  The company's purpose is to make as much money as possible. That means that their interest is to make their employees work as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. If they try to make you do better/more work a nicer or a ruder way is an implementation detail. The goal is always to extract as much work as possible from you at the lowest price. Sometimes the goals of the company converge with the goal of employees. Most of the time they exist in a state of frozen conflict. It sucks, but that's just how the employer/employee relationship must work out in general.
musicale 5y ago
> shortage of skilled workers to fill positions Companies are willing to do anything to attract skilled workers short of raising wages.

by ethbr0 5y ago

viraptor 5y ago

You say that like the company's purpose is to be as bad to employees as possible. I get where the idea comes from, but that's not true everywhere and companies did remote work before it was forced on them. It doesn't have to be "bend to some of labor's demands", but rather "choose most effective hiring and working strategy".

glhaynes 5y ago
>You say that like the company's purpose is to be as bad to employees as possible. Where? I don’t see that in what they wrote.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- viraptor 5y ago
  > Everyone would be going back into the office... if there wasn't a shortage of skilled workers to fill positions. A different way to read that is: people would do as told and not ask to work remotely because they could get replaced. But that applies only if the company does not care about the employees and wants cogs instead.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Alternative rationale: institutional inertia prevents change. Remote work is a big change. Ergo, absent an exteral driver of change, companies will continue doing what they've always done.
ryanSrich 5y ago
This is a failure of the job to be done though. The JTBD for the execs at these companies forcing in person work isn’t to be efficient. It’s to make themselves feel good. They feel better when they see asses in seats. It’s really that simple. If efficiency had literally anything to do with it we would have all been remote since 2005.
- granshaw 5y ago
  Misread as assets in seats. Still works
- underwater 5y ago
  I think that's a little simplistic. Lots of people are just as productive, or more productive, at home as they are in an office. But I've also had a lot of other people tell me they struggle to work remotely. It really depends on the individual, where they are in their career, and what type of project they're working on.
thelastknowngod 5y ago
I think there is a significant amount of companies (and a substantial portion of the government) in the US that operates on a philosophy like "How much can we extract from people before there is any push back?" It is a nation entirely built on micro transactions.. I am sitting in an airport right now. Baggage carts are free to use. The last time I flew in the US it was a $5 fee. Why? Because it's just enough to extract value from us but not enough for anyone to complain in a significant way. I don't think that companies are deliberately trying to be awful to workers. They are just using the standard American model.. "How much can we get away with?" The country is in desperate need of widespread unionization efforts.
- refurb 5y ago
  Do you think this is a uniquely American issue? Having lived in other countries it’s worse.
- Mertax 5y ago
  I don’t think all companies are as adversarial towards their employees as this makes it sound. Great companies recognize they benefit when they are proactively trying to do what’s best for the employee as well as the company. Companies that I’ve seen do it well have an executive level employee advocacy position. Typically in a human resource department, but less concerned about the policy and regulatory requirements and is specifically tasked to be a champion/voice for employees.
- kortilla 5y ago
  > The country is in desperate need of widespread unionization efforts. No thanks. I don’t like working with clock punchers nor do I want to get paid as poorly as programmers in Europe/Canada. Until unions in the US stop prioritizing seniority over competence for pay, they need to stay the hell away from this industry.
  - underwater 5y ago
    Good pay is nice, but it's not the only variable to the equation. I worked received great pay in the US, but made the decision to return to Australia. I have some regrets, but the lifestyle I get from not being in the Bay Area pretty much offsets any pay difference. What I miss most is the scope and pace of the work and the incredibly intelligent people I got to work with. Thankfully I'm beginning to see the genesis of this in my local market.
sudosysgen 5y ago
The company's purpose is to make as much money as possible. That means that their interest is to make their employees work as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. If they try to make you do better/more work a nicer or a ruder way is an implementation detail. The goal is always to extract as much work as possible from you at the lowest price. Sometimes the goals of the company converge with the goal of employees. Most of the time they exist in a state of frozen conflict. It sucks, but that's just how the employer/employee relationship must work out in general.

musicale 5y ago

> shortage of skilled workers to fill positions Companies are willing to do anything to attract skilled workers short of raising wages.