4 ms·

> I can't wait to get back to the office. > being home and having no external pressure to keep working > it was easy to get out of the bed and go work out >

> I can't wait to get back to the office. > being home and having no external pressure to keep working > it was easy to get out of the bed and go work out > I get to just eat lunch from office's cafeteria > still in my underpants at home after work it is way harder to dress up and go do stuff The paradox in this situation, is that some employers are considering cutting the pay [0] of people who have the self-discipline, drive and focus to not need the artificial crutch of going into an arbitrary office-space to find the motivation to do their work. [0]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/12/google-staff-could-see-pay-cut-if-they-opt-to-work-from-home https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/12/google-st...

rytis 5y ago
Intuitively, I'd think, it should be the opposite - no need to pay for the office space, money saved, can give that to the employees. But no, instead - save money on the office, and then save even more on the salaries. Just wow.
- chii 5y ago
  > then save even more on the salaries the problem is that remote is seen as a benefit (which it is), and so naturally must be priced as part of the salary. The fact that being remote requires some discipline, and this discipline makes for a better employee doesn't play into it - because a employer would already expect such discipline, whether it actually exists or not.
- bradlys 5y ago
  > Intuitively, I'd think, it should be the opposite - no need to pay for the office space, money saved, can give that to the employees. But no, instead - save money on the office, and then save even more on the salaries. Just wow. Capitalism in a nutshell. :) Don't have to compete for your labor as aggressively because there are more candidates available for a lower wage. Until companies are fully socialist entities (I think the Starship Enterprise will come first), you're gonna keep seeing whatever saves the company the most money (or whatever goes straight to the execs pockets at least).

rytis 5y ago

Intuitively, I'd think, it should be the opposite - no need to pay for the office space, money saved, can give that to the employees. But no, instead - save money on the office, and then save even more on the salaries. Just wow.

chii 5y ago
> then save even more on the salaries the problem is that remote is seen as a benefit (which it is), and so naturally must be priced as part of the salary. The fact that being remote requires some discipline, and this discipline makes for a better employee doesn't play into it - because a employer would already expect such discipline, whether it actually exists or not.
bradlys 5y ago
> Intuitively, I'd think, it should be the opposite - no need to pay for the office space, money saved, can give that to the employees. But no, instead - save money on the office, and then save even more on the salaries. Just wow. Capitalism in a nutshell. :) Don't have to compete for your labor as aggressively because there are more candidates available for a lower wage. Until companies are fully socialist entities (I think the Starship Enterprise will come first), you're gonna keep seeing whatever saves the company the most money (or whatever goes straight to the execs pockets at least).