3 ms·

I'm not sure what you mean? Are you saying remote workers aren't working full-time? I'm a remote worker and I work way more than most in office workers.

revskill 4y ago
I mean simply there's no relation between fulltime and remote. Is it hard to understand, or ?
- snozolli 4y ago
  The article doesn't equate "full-time" and "remote". It simply mentions the interest in remote work as evidence that employees are looking for more flexibility.
  - revskill 4y ago
    It doesn't equate, but it implies remote! That's the issue. If you try contact to any HR people, and they say "fulltime", it means "no remote is allowed". In this case, the title should replace Fulltime with Remote for flexibility.
    - snozolli 4y ago
      It doesn't equate, but it implies remote! No, it doesn't. In this case, the title should replace Fulltime with Remote for flexibility. What are you talking about? You think the title should be "After Callous Layoffs, Workers Are Done With the Remote Work Model"?!
      - revskill 4y ago
        Logic of article: Too much layoffs => Fulltime job is insecure => Now workers prefer remote or freelancer work. You see the "implication" here ? I'm not sure what's hard to see the issue here. The correct logic should be: => Now workers prefer freelancer work. (no remote here as it's unrelated to fulltime). It's the story about Fulltime vs Freelance. I don't see Remote is related at all.
        snozolli 4y ago
        Now workers prefer remote or freelancer work. Wrong. The article is about prospective employees wanting 1) more flexibility and 2) less risk exposure to the whims of a single company. Remote work is mentioned in one paragraph as evidence of people seeking flexibility. It's mentioned a second time in the context of remote work making it easier for companies to hire freelancers (i.e. you aren't restricted to local talent). You misread the article, posted a bizarre screed that got down-voted, and for some reason you keep trying to make the same incorrect claim.
xen2xen1 4y ago
Grandfather commentor has some experience we don't.

revskill 4y ago

I mean simply there's no relation between fulltime and remote. Is it hard to understand, or ?

snozolli 4y ago
The article doesn't equate "full-time" and "remote". It simply mentions the interest in remote work as evidence that employees are looking for more flexibility.
- revskill 4y ago
  It doesn't equate, but it implies remote! That's the issue. If you try contact to any HR people, and they say "fulltime", it means "no remote is allowed". In this case, the title should replace Fulltime with Remote for flexibility.
  - snozolli 4y ago
    It doesn't equate, but it implies remote! No, it doesn't. In this case, the title should replace Fulltime with Remote for flexibility. What are you talking about? You think the title should be "After Callous Layoffs, Workers Are Done With the Remote Work Model"?!
    - revskill 4y ago
      Logic of article: Too much layoffs => Fulltime job is insecure => Now workers prefer remote or freelancer work. You see the "implication" here ? I'm not sure what's hard to see the issue here. The correct logic should be: => Now workers prefer freelancer work. (no remote here as it's unrelated to fulltime). It's the story about Fulltime vs Freelance. I don't see Remote is related at all.
      - snozolli 4y ago
        Now workers prefer remote or freelancer work. Wrong. The article is about prospective employees wanting 1) more flexibility and 2) less risk exposure to the whims of a single company. Remote work is mentioned in one paragraph as evidence of people seeking flexibility. It's mentioned a second time in the context of remote work making it easier for companies to hire freelancers (i.e. you aren't restricted to local talent). You misread the article, posted a bizarre screed that got down-voted, and for some reason you keep trying to make the same incorrect claim.

xen2xen1 4y ago

Grandfather commentor has some experience we don't.