4 ms·
whole thing makes no sense, just feels like leadership is flailing. Is RTO just sunk cost fallacy due to these big companies having spent billions on real estat
by ren_engineer 4y ago
whole thing makes no sense, just feels like leadership is flailing. Is RTO just sunk cost fallacy due to these big companies having spent billions on real estate and fancy buildings? There seems to be minimal benefits to mandating it, it shrinks your talent pool, makes employees less efficient due to commute, forces you to pay more in tech hubs, and makes you spend more on office stuff. The only benefit is the completely non-measurable "improved collaboration" metric
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Ancalagon 4y agoMakes perfect sense if they’re trying to downsize without paying severance/unemployment.
- timeless102 4y agoIf they don't come it and don't resign themselves, then I assume google would fire them in which case they would get severance? Is that how it works? It's only an issue if the people who wfh resign then they would not get severance/unemployment?
- Ancalagon 4y agoIn the case of not coming in it’s kind of a gray area right now. Some stipulate failing to come to the office would be a failure to perform and so the employee would be fired without severance but still be able to collect unemployment. People who resign would be quitting on their own accord and would not be able to receive neither a severance nor unemployment. That’s why resignations are probably Google’s ultimate goal.
- ElfinTrousers 4y agoI'm sure that everyone that Google would fire because of this would receive at least the severance prescribed by law: nothing.