3 ms·
Says totally un-biased study not geared towards the interests of one of the largest corporations in the US that does not want power to shift to labor.
by BigRedDog1669 5y ago
Says totally un-biased study not geared towards the interests of one of the largest corporations in the US that does not want power to shift to labor.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y agoCould you explain why it would be in Microsoft's interests to bias the outcome of this study? Presumably the organization as a whole is mostly interested in output. Individual managers might have ego invested in their workers being local, but the organization probably doesn't, unless it impacts productivity. So MS' interests here seem aligned with determining the truth of the situation.
- 6c696e7578 5y agoMost business owners probably don't want experienced staff to have opportunities to work remotely for another organisation.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y agoMicrosoft would tend to be a beneficiary of remote work opportunities, though, since they pay better than most places, and since the COL at their head office is high. If their workers can work anywhere, they might be able to pay them less. I have a friend who went fully remote there lately and took a 15% paycut to do it. Now he lives in a city with few local dev jobs, so he's even more married to Microsoft than before, when he lived SFBA and had many local opportunities. All that to say this doesn't seem like a strong reason for them to put their finger on the scale.
- wbsss4412 5y agoHow does remote work shift power to labor? It seems to me that the opening of the labor pool and the employer pool up geographically washes out. If anything remote work entrenches the power of the providers of remote work tools eg microsoft.
- misterbwong 5y agoThis. It's not entirely clear that remote working is at all more "worker-friendly." Flexibility has increased, mostly, but so has overwork and mental health issues.