3 ms·

The laws exist already, and even where they don’t directly address WiFi, they address broad enough situations to be applicable to WiFi issues. It’s also not rea

The laws exist already, and even where they don’t directly address WiFi, they address broad enough situations to be applicable to WiFi issues. It’s also not really something that requires unique and specific laws to address. For it to be a useful practical thought experiment it ought to address the law as it exists. It’s a cut and dry issue as it relates to the law. The interesting points might be around what level it ought to shift from a civil issue to a criminal one and vice versa. The analogy in the original post between a broadcasted network signal and excess light is also a bad analogy even though technically it’s just two types of light emitted at different frequencies. It’s not analogous because of how it’s used in the two separate instances. It’s not really that interesting of a philosophical issue either; I find the notion that it’s a novel issue to be baffling. Out of all the many novel issues arising from mass WFH this isn’t one of them.

Supermancho 5y ago
This feels like a subtle anti-remote work puff piece to test the waters with scare phrases like: "When organisations talk about remote working reducing their costs, it’s worth considering which of those costs are just being passed onto to the employee, and if that is fair." I don't know a many people who lament WFH, excepting educators and middle-managers.
- avianlyric 5y ago
  I’m not sure I would read that passage as lamenting WFH. It could equally be read as comment on whether is fair to pay people less if they’re WFH. Or equally it could be read as comment that companies should be passing some of their WFH savings on to employees rather than shareholders.
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    > Or equally it could be read as comment that companies should be passing some of their WFH savings on to employees rather than shareholders. There's nothing about savings mentioned, just costs. Now you could really stretch the meaning of cost to possibly include inversion of value, but that's incongruous with the vernacular used in the article and is not even hinted at. Based on these things, I wouldn't agree with the interpretation of "costs". Corporate welfare (savings go to value/bonuses/shareholders, costs go to customers) is a the norm in the US. This article goes one step farther to suggest there are costs that are being passed to the employees. It makes no sense when faced with reality, playing as FUD.

Supermancho 5y ago

This feels like a subtle anti-remote work puff piece to test the waters with scare phrases like: "When organisations talk about remote working reducing their costs, it’s worth considering which of those costs are just being passed onto to the employee, and if that is fair." I don't know a many people who lament WFH, excepting educators and middle-managers.

avianlyric 5y ago
I’m not sure I would read that passage as lamenting WFH. It could equally be read as comment on whether is fair to pay people less if they’re WFH. Or equally it could be read as comment that companies should be passing some of their WFH savings on to employees rather than shareholders.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  > Or equally it could be read as comment that companies should be passing some of their WFH savings on to employees rather than shareholders. There's nothing about savings mentioned, just costs. Now you could really stretch the meaning of cost to possibly include inversion of value, but that's incongruous with the vernacular used in the article and is not even hinted at. Based on these things, I wouldn't agree with the interpretation of "costs". Corporate welfare (savings go to value/bonuses/shareholders, costs go to customers) is a the norm in the US. This article goes one step farther to suggest there are costs that are being passed to the employees. It makes no sense when faced with reality, playing as FUD.