4 ms·
The building argument doesn't seem to make business sense so I doubt that's the reason. An empty building is not consuming as much power as a full building so e
by gernb 5y ago
The building argument doesn't seem to make business sense so I doubt that's the reason. An empty building is not consuming as much power as a full building so even if the business is wasting money on a building and has to because of a lease they'd still save money for employees to be remote.
In other words. From most expensive to least
* all employees at office
* empty office, employees remote
* no office, employees remote
Business would do whatever is cheapest unless they believe they won't hit their targets. So it's got nothing to do with the buildings existing.
Must be some other reason.
- incomingpain 5y agoIt doesnt make business sense for the normal case, but the unexpected covid lockdowns and inaction on immediately selling the buildings expecting to go back. Later to find out you aren't going back? Like in OP's pov, the intention is 2 days a week but as he expects, it's just to slowly ease back into 5 days a week. No doubt seeing that the lower cost being to take some HR losses is less than the huge discount in selling the building.
- gernb 5y agoI'm still not following your argument. No matter what it's cheaper for the employer to allow employees to work remote. It doesn't matter if they already signed up to pay for the building for another 5 years or whatever. Rent + Monthly Expenses > Rent So an company who only cared about money wouldn't pull employees back into the office as that's more expensive for them than letting them say at home, even if they company is still paying rent. They'd need some other reason, like they believe employees are more productive at work. Short of that, they'd just let them stay home, even if they have to keep paying rent on an empty office it's still less money than rent + office expenses.