3 ms·

The debate is not pointless. The right to work from wherever you want is a 21st century worker's right that (i would expect) workers would support unequivocably

The debate is not pointless. The right to work from wherever you want is a 21st century worker's right that (i would expect) workers would support unequivocably. Of course some people won't choose it, but the option should be there

blowski 5y ago
There is no fundamental "human right" to work from home. An employer has the "right" to ask you to work from their office in exchange for money. You have the right to accept or decline their offer.
- JackPoach 5y ago
  Moreover there's no 'right to work from office' either. Nor should there be. Economics doesn't work this way.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  There were no right to 8 hour work or paid leave, or paternity leave, until there were. work rights are not fundamental (as in, 'natural'), they are granted by worker's protection laws and they havent changed much in decades. Combined with climate action, i don't see why legislators shouldn't nudge businesses to switch to work from wherever
  - blowski 5y ago
    So you're saying the government should pass a law to make it a right?
    - cblconfederate 5y ago
      over time as it becomes increasingly popular, workers will demand from legislators to make it happen. who am i to demand what government should do
      - JackPoach 5y ago
        Yeah, but is working from home really a 'right' akin to 8 hour day or a 'perk' similar to office dinners or sabbaticals or corporate Christmas parties?
        cblconfederate 5y ago
        Yes it is, as it enables whole classes of people who have the ability to join the workforce, e.g. disabled people, or busy mothers , or people who simply can't move to the bay area . Those perks you talk about are not an option for the vaast majority of workers outside a few cities aroudn the globe
        blowski 5y ago
        It also excludes (to some degree) those who cannot afford a dedicated, quiet office with fast internet at home.
        cblconfederate 5y ago
        theoretically, "cannot afford" is impossible when remote work is abundant. After all what confines people to that tiny apartment was the physical requirements of their (or their parents') workplace. It certanily doesnt exclude anyone, it slightly inconveniences them, in return for greatly improving the lives of many more.
        blowski 5y ago
        I have to say, while you're trying to be inclusive, your comment comes across as exclusive to the specific lifestyle of a career like a young, unattached software developer. There are a lot of reasons why someone might not be able to move wherever they like. For example, they don't want to leave the area where they grew up, where all their friends and family live, and their kids go to school. Or where their partner can't move because they work somewhere like a hospital. As for "slightly inconveniences"... maybe for some it's nothing more than that, but for many people it's been an absolute nightmare. I admire your desire to make work more inclusive, but the irony is that working from home tends to benefit wealthy, educated individuals in highly-paid specialist jobs. We need a lot of other changes if we're to have mass remote working without a huge increase of economic inequality.
JackPoach 5y ago
Sorry, but you can't make up 'rights' as you go. When did remote work became a right and why? I too can make up 'rights' that I'd like to have. For instance, I'd like to to be the 21st century right for every employee to get 50% of the company profit IN ADDITION to their salary. Why? Because I think it's a right. After all, don't employees drive company profits? Shouldn't they be compensated properly? I sure would. It's very easy to claim that salary alone is not enough and only profit-sharing is fair (BTW, there are companies that work this way - and this is great). If you think that your argument is correct, turn in the other way around. Let's say you are a consumer of goods and services. You want education? Great - no more face to face learning in the lecture room. Only Zoom and video. Why? Because it's teachers right. Lawyers and doctors - no office visits, unless it's emergency. Why? They have the right to work from home too. Shopping? Online orders only man. It's the right. Would you want to live in the world that works this way? Probably not.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  sure you can make up rights, most of them will be rejected, but if society at large likes them they 'll become permanent. Remote work increases the freedom of the individual, is beneficial to the environment, has negligible-or-positive effect to economic output. It's hard to make a case against it, especially since it doesn't violate anybody else's rights (the "remote" location can be the office) In fact legislators don't need to enforce anything yet, but they need to make remote work more feasible. Things like, don't require physical headquarters or physical paperwork and inspections, don't tie any kind of taxation/social security etc to physical locations, facilitate faster switching of jobs etc.

blowski 5y ago

There is no fundamental "human right" to work from home. An employer has the "right" to ask you to work from their office in exchange for money. You have the right to accept or decline their offer.

JackPoach 5y ago
Moreover there's no 'right to work from office' either. Nor should there be. Economics doesn't work this way.
cblconfederate 5y ago
There were no right to 8 hour work or paid leave, or paternity leave, until there were. work rights are not fundamental (as in, 'natural'), they are granted by worker's protection laws and they havent changed much in decades. Combined with climate action, i don't see why legislators shouldn't nudge businesses to switch to work from wherever
- blowski 5y ago
  So you're saying the government should pass a law to make it a right?
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    over time as it becomes increasingly popular, workers will demand from legislators to make it happen. who am i to demand what government should do
    - JackPoach 5y ago
      Yeah, but is working from home really a 'right' akin to 8 hour day or a 'perk' similar to office dinners or sabbaticals or corporate Christmas parties?
      - cblconfederate 5y ago
        Yes it is, as it enables whole classes of people who have the ability to join the workforce, e.g. disabled people, or busy mothers , or people who simply can't move to the bay area . Those perks you talk about are not an option for the vaast majority of workers outside a few cities aroudn the globe
        blowski 5y ago
        It also excludes (to some degree) those who cannot afford a dedicated, quiet office with fast internet at home.
        cblconfederate 5y ago
        theoretically, "cannot afford" is impossible when remote work is abundant. After all what confines people to that tiny apartment was the physical requirements of their (or their parents') workplace. It certanily doesnt exclude anyone, it slightly inconveniences them, in return for greatly improving the lives of many more.
        blowski 5y ago
        I have to say, while you're trying to be inclusive, your comment comes across as exclusive to the specific lifestyle of a career like a young, unattached software developer. There are a lot of reasons why someone might not be able to move wherever they like. For example, they don't want to leave the area where they grew up, where all their friends and family live, and their kids go to school. Or where their partner can't move because they work somewhere like a hospital. As for "slightly inconveniences"... maybe for some it's nothing more than that, but for many people it's been an absolute nightmare. I admire your desire to make work more inclusive, but the irony is that working from home tends to benefit wealthy, educated individuals in highly-paid specialist jobs. We need a lot of other changes if we're to have mass remote working without a huge increase of economic inequality.

JackPoach 5y ago

Sorry, but you can't make up 'rights' as you go. When did remote work became a right and why? I too can make up 'rights' that I'd like to have. For instance, I'd like to to be the 21st century right for every employee to get 50% of the company profit IN ADDITION to their salary. Why? Because I think it's a right. After all, don't employees drive company profits? Shouldn't they be compensated properly? I sure would. It's very easy to claim that salary alone is not enough and only profit-sharing is fair (BTW, there are companies that work this way - and this is great). If you think that your argument is correct, turn in the other way around. Let's say you are a consumer of goods and services. You want education? Great - no more face to face learning in the lecture room. Only Zoom and video. Why? Because it's teachers right. Lawyers and doctors - no office visits, unless it's emergency. Why? They have the right to work from home too. Shopping? Online orders only man. It's the right. Would you want to live in the world that works this way? Probably not.

cblconfederate 5y ago
sure you can make up rights, most of them will be rejected, but if society at large likes them they 'll become permanent. Remote work increases the freedom of the individual, is beneficial to the environment, has negligible-or-positive effect to economic output. It's hard to make a case against it, especially since it doesn't violate anybody else's rights (the "remote" location can be the office) In fact legislators don't need to enforce anything yet, but they need to make remote work more feasible. Things like, don't require physical headquarters or physical paperwork and inspections, don't tie any kind of taxation/social security etc to physical locations, facilitate faster switching of jobs etc.