4 ms·
I know. That's why I assume that it won't work. But let's take your scenario and run with it. :) I assume for this thought exercise that that both Alice and
by coreyp_1 4y ago
I know. That's why I assume that it won't work. But let's take your scenario and run with it. :)
I assume for this thought exercise that that both Alice and Bob have WFH-compatible jobs.
Alice could move further away. Will that change her hours worked (under this scheme)? No.
Performance reviews, then, would need to be mandated to only consider actual work time.
The problem with mandating complex systems will always come down to the edge cases. Companies will optimize location when searching for employees. Should you make it illegal to ask about location during the hiring process? What happens if an employee moves? Does it matter if they move one week after being hired as opposed to three years?
In short, legislating this type of thing would lead to undesirable emergent behavior caused by the rules of that complex system. It's a good approach if everyone plays fair and works together for mutual benefit, but since when does a company or employee truly care about each other these days?
- kkfx 4y agoI have a far simpler solution, the same happen with great success in the past, united people. Witch means: - a company can perfectly ask for work in the office, even if that job is eligible to be done from remote; - if there are peoples accepting that, good for them. If not they'll have no choice. That's a classic and big social issue: people do not know anymore to be social. So you see a certain "unionization push" but at a bureaucratic level, not at mere human level. If enough IT pro, especially those with a bit of skills, not necessarily genius, gurus etc, decide that ALL WFH-eligible jobs will be accepted only from remote there is no need for a law.