2 ms·

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

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.