3 ms·

The opposite is true. Employees are the ones ultimately doing the work and know what value they add. As they see it, they'd have to make outsized sacrifices to

The opposite is true. Employees are the ones ultimately doing the work and know what value they add. As they see it, they'd have to make outsized sacrifices to return to the office. Businesses have not provided any compelling reason to come back to the office, the actual workers doing the work know how little value it adds to their own stand-alone job. Raising the subject of maintaining remote work rather than pursuing opportunities elsewhere is collaboration, ironically the argument they put forward for RTO. It's a small concession from the company for the benefit of increased productivity, if that's not the reason then the company should explain it and sure as hell, it will need to be a compelling one.

kcplate 4y ago
Employees often have a pretty inflated understanding of how much value they truly provide an organization. Your only slightly more valuable than your replacement sitting in the wings, and only then it’s for a relatively short period of time. Employees need to be providing the compelling reason to the company about why WFH is better.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  If you want to make the case that workers have no power, and they’re always a replaceable cog, then certainly the only course of action is for them to pursue obtaining power under the protection of the federal government and the NLRB.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    Wxactly where did I say that they had no power? I was speaking about an individuals perception of their value being greater than it actually is, especially if the point of contention is not a point of contention for other waiting candidates that can do their job. However, to your point—even a union has convince an employer why WFH is in the employer’s best interest to get the benefit.
- theonlybutlet 4y ago
  Despite what you think, a happy worker is a productive worker. Also people tend to look for meaning and purpose in their day to day job. Naturally they're going to be upset, when they're asked to do something that does not help them do the job, inconveniences their lives outside work and contradictorily goes against a fundamental principle of working, being productive.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    The problem tech workers have in the the whole WFH vs RTO debate is that the worker is not arguing from a position of strength. There is a long history behind productive in office work for tech and a short history behind remote work for tech. Whatever productivity gains the worker perceives WFH gives them are either not measurable, not large enough to be noticed by the employer, or not worth other considerations and challenges the employer has to contend with. For example, if some positions within the organization cannot be performed remotely—as an employer, do I still single out one class of worker to provide a perceived benefit for what may or may not amount to a minor productivity perception gain generally only noticed by the employee? Sure that group is marginally happier, but given time and distance between the WFH and RTO, will the employees just return to the new normal? Usually. However, if I give in and allow WFH do I create a morale problem among other workers who do not have access to that benefit just to kowtow to a group of employees that may (or more likely may not) leave but could be replaced quite easily by equivalent people who do not make that demand?
    - theonlybutlet 4y ago
      You make a good point, in a way it's a race to the bottom. The same could be said of any worker right that is not legally enshrined.

kcplate 4y ago

Employees often have a pretty inflated understanding of how much value they truly provide an organization. Your only slightly more valuable than your replacement sitting in the wings, and only then it’s for a relatively short period of time. Employees need to be providing the compelling reason to the company about why WFH is better.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
If you want to make the case that workers have no power, and they’re always a replaceable cog, then certainly the only course of action is for them to pursue obtaining power under the protection of the federal government and the NLRB.
- kcplate 4y ago
  Wxactly where did I say that they had no power? I was speaking about an individuals perception of their value being greater than it actually is, especially if the point of contention is not a point of contention for other waiting candidates that can do their job. However, to your point—even a union has convince an employer why WFH is in the employer’s best interest to get the benefit.
theonlybutlet 4y ago
Despite what you think, a happy worker is a productive worker. Also people tend to look for meaning and purpose in their day to day job. Naturally they're going to be upset, when they're asked to do something that does not help them do the job, inconveniences their lives outside work and contradictorily goes against a fundamental principle of working, being productive.
- kcplate 4y ago
  The problem tech workers have in the the whole WFH vs RTO debate is that the worker is not arguing from a position of strength. There is a long history behind productive in office work for tech and a short history behind remote work for tech. Whatever productivity gains the worker perceives WFH gives them are either not measurable, not large enough to be noticed by the employer, or not worth other considerations and challenges the employer has to contend with. For example, if some positions within the organization cannot be performed remotely—as an employer, do I still single out one class of worker to provide a perceived benefit for what may or may not amount to a minor productivity perception gain generally only noticed by the employee? Sure that group is marginally happier, but given time and distance between the WFH and RTO, will the employees just return to the new normal? Usually. However, if I give in and allow WFH do I create a morale problem among other workers who do not have access to that benefit just to kowtow to a group of employees that may (or more likely may not) leave but could be replaced quite easily by equivalent people who do not make that demand?
  - theonlybutlet 4y ago
    You make a good point, in a way it's a race to the bottom. The same could be said of any worker right that is not legally enshrined.