5 ms·

> towards something in which everything was codified, safetyism became rampant Those "gentleman's agreements" were not that great if you happened to be a woman

> towards something in which everything was codified, safetyism became rampant Those "gentleman's agreements" were not that great if you happened to be a woman, gay or any other minority. The upsides to HR, employment regulation and so on has been making the office a far better place to work for a lot of people. While I agree that there are rampant problems in a lot of sectors, from low skilled to medical, there have been some wins. My team went fully remote for 2 years and now most people still work 3 days a week from home. We were able to build up a large and talented team during the lockdowns with most of my co-workers and those I manage 3 timezones away. We adopted more flexible working hours and we've never been happier. My manager can take time in the morning to get his kids to creche and I can take a longer lunch to check in on elderly relatives. I no longer spend 2 hours a day stuck in traffic. Our productivity has skyrocketed. We may be privileged tech workers, but the change in work styles has definitely boosted our company as a whole.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jbm 4y ago
- thot_experiment 4y ago
  I feel like this is a very real concern? In general I'm in favor of playing fast and loose with rules, and don't put a lot of stock into codifying anything because I feel like it's overall a huge negative when you're trying to get things done. That all being said this particular arena is one that's so fraught with tiny little edges that all stack up to benefit certain classes of people unequally it unfortunately feels necessary to be explicit and precise. Ultimately this power is a zero sum game, and for and a more equal world means we must take power from some people and give it to others. That's almost never a thing that happens voluntarily, even if the will is there. It's very easy to argue for a status quo that benefits you, especially if the advantages you gain are easy to lie to yourself about. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair
f1refly 4y ago
> Those "gentleman's agreements" were not that great if you happened to be a woman, gay or any other minority. You just say that like it's a fact, but... why would that be the case?
- watwut 4y ago
  Because one can break gentlemen agreement against people with lower social status. Also, because low key bullying or lying about or whatever of people with lower social status is acceptable for gentlemen.
  - f1refly 4y ago
    Again, you say that like it's a fact. Gentlemens agreements can be broken with everyone. Low key bullying or lying about is not acceptable for anyone for gentlemen. You seem to have a misunderstanding what "gentlemen agreement" means. It's not limited to upper class men, or men at all. Everyone can have gentlemens agreements with anyone, it means "two or more people who implicitly agree on a thing".
shrimp_emoji 4y ago
But what about the so on?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jbm 4y ago

thot_experiment 4y ago
I feel like this is a very real concern? In general I'm in favor of playing fast and loose with rules, and don't put a lot of stock into codifying anything because I feel like it's overall a huge negative when you're trying to get things done. That all being said this particular arena is one that's so fraught with tiny little edges that all stack up to benefit certain classes of people unequally it unfortunately feels necessary to be explicit and precise. Ultimately this power is a zero sum game, and for and a more equal world means we must take power from some people and give it to others. That's almost never a thing that happens voluntarily, even if the will is there. It's very easy to argue for a status quo that benefits you, especially if the advantages you gain are easy to lie to yourself about. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair

f1refly 4y ago

> Those "gentleman's agreements" were not that great if you happened to be a woman, gay or any other minority. You just say that like it's a fact, but... why would that be the case?

watwut 4y ago
Because one can break gentlemen agreement against people with lower social status. Also, because low key bullying or lying about or whatever of people with lower social status is acceptable for gentlemen.
- f1refly 4y ago
  Again, you say that like it's a fact. Gentlemens agreements can be broken with everyone. Low key bullying or lying about is not acceptable for anyone for gentlemen. You seem to have a misunderstanding what "gentlemen agreement" means. It's not limited to upper class men, or men at all. Everyone can have gentlemens agreements with anyone, it means "two or more people who implicitly agree on a thing".

shrimp_emoji 4y ago

But what about the so on?