3 ms·

If you were hired while working remotely, and were doing your job, how is mandatory RTO reasonable? Mandatory RTO is uncompensated time for the employer in the

by olliej 4y ago

If you were hired while working remotely, and were doing your job, how is mandatory RTO reasonable? Mandatory RTO is uncompensated time for the employer in the form of commute hours. It's paying for gas. It's mandatory child care payments for people with children. I have yet to hear of a single mandatory RTO policy that compensated people or that provided any compensation at all for any of the incurred time or financial costs that mandatory RTO forces onto employees. If you were doing your job effectively without having to be in the office, mandatory RTO is unreasonable. If you were originally hired under remote work conditions, it's also a clear change to the employment conditions you agreed to. Mandatory RTO costs me between 12 and 15 hours of time and around $70 in gas, and that's only 3 days a week. So these aren't irrelevant sums of time or money, especially given that these are contractors at the low end of the pay scale.

dehrmann 4y ago
> If you were hired while working remotely, and were doing your job, how is mandatory RTO reasonable? It really depends what your employment contract said, but the smart assumption (and these workers are in Texas, mind you), is that covid WFH was a temporary situation. RTO wasn't a given, but no one should be surprised if an employer asks for it. If you're actually remote and hired during covid by a previously non-remote company, you went into it knowing the company might change its mind, and you could be easily laid off. > Mandatory RTO costs me between 12 and 15 hours of time and around $70 in gas, and that's only 3 days a week. You signed up knowing there was a possibility of a 2-hour commute. You balanced how much your time is worth, the likelihood of mandatory RTO, and where you want to live. Suppose you want to live on a ranch a few hours from the office in a city. Asking the company to pay for your commute and commute time is the company subsidizing your ranch lifestyle. That's a choice you made, but it makes others pay for it.
- olliej 4y ago
  > You signed up knowing there was a possibility of a 2-hour commute. You balanced how much your time is worth, the likelihood of mandatory RTO, and where you want to live. low and minimum wage workers don't get to choose short commutes. But you also came into this with the claim that RTO was "reasonable", and if you've had multiple years demonstrating there is no need to be in an office, and multiple years for the details of your life to change, and I would argue that mandatory RTO given that is not "reasonable". It is clear that you are of the opinion that it is reasonable to force employees into a less productive, less safe, and more generally unpleasant environment for no reason other than "because you can". History is littered with things that were legal at the time, that we look back at and say "wow, that's f'd up".
  - dehrmann 4y ago
    > multiple years for the details of your life to change, and I would argue that mandatory RTO given that is not "reasonable". People change. Companies change. Over a few years, what might have started out as a good match might not be any more. That's OK. > History is littered with things that were legal at the time, that we look back at and say "wow, that's f'd up" To be clear, you're comparing child labor, slavery, etc. to requiring people to go to an office to work?
- Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
  > and these workers are in Texas, mind you 20% live out of state, according to https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2023-02-10/youtube-music-workers-call-strike-against-local-contractor/ https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2023-02-10/youtube-musi... > Suppose you want to live on a ranch a few hours from the office in a city. Talking about ranch lifestyle feels disingenuous when the workers on strike argue they can't afford living close to the office due to how expensive that area is. (same source)

by olliej 4y ago

dehrmann 4y ago

> If you were hired while working remotely, and were doing your job, how is mandatory RTO reasonable? It really depends what your employment contract said, but the smart assumption (and these workers are in Texas, mind you), is that covid WFH was a temporary situation. RTO wasn't a given, but no one should be surprised if an employer asks for it. If you're actually remote and hired during covid by a previously non-remote company, you went into it knowing the company might change its mind, and you could be easily laid off. > Mandatory RTO costs me between 12 and 15 hours of time and around $70 in gas, and that's only 3 days a week. You signed up knowing there was a possibility of a 2-hour commute. You balanced how much your time is worth, the likelihood of mandatory RTO, and where you want to live. Suppose you want to live on a ranch a few hours from the office in a city. Asking the company to pay for your commute and commute time is the company subsidizing your ranch lifestyle. That's a choice you made, but it makes others pay for it.

olliej 4y ago
> You signed up knowing there was a possibility of a 2-hour commute. You balanced how much your time is worth, the likelihood of mandatory RTO, and where you want to live. low and minimum wage workers don't get to choose short commutes. But you also came into this with the claim that RTO was "reasonable", and if you've had multiple years demonstrating there is no need to be in an office, and multiple years for the details of your life to change, and I would argue that mandatory RTO given that is not "reasonable". It is clear that you are of the opinion that it is reasonable to force employees into a less productive, less safe, and more generally unpleasant environment for no reason other than "because you can". History is littered with things that were legal at the time, that we look back at and say "wow, that's f'd up".
- dehrmann 4y ago
  > multiple years for the details of your life to change, and I would argue that mandatory RTO given that is not "reasonable". People change. Companies change. Over a few years, what might have started out as a good match might not be any more. That's OK. > History is littered with things that were legal at the time, that we look back at and say "wow, that's f'd up" To be clear, you're comparing child labor, slavery, etc. to requiring people to go to an office to work?
Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
> and these workers are in Texas, mind you 20% live out of state, according to https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2023-02-10/youtube-music-workers-call-strike-against-local-contractor/ https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2023-02-10/youtube-musi... > Suppose you want to live on a ranch a few hours from the office in a city. Talking about ranch lifestyle feels disingenuous when the workers on strike argue they can't afford living close to the office due to how expensive that area is. (same source)