5 ms·
Or you know, you can quit and go to a full-remote company. Good companies need good people so this would fix itself. If most of my colleagues and the owners of
by vasco 3y ago
Or you know, you can quit and go to a full-remote company. Good companies need good people so this would fix itself. If most of my colleagues and the owners of the company I work for decide they prefer to work in an office, why would I enforce my will upon them, instead of finding people that agree with me? I quit my last job to work fully remote and my boss knows I'd quit the day we'd remove that.
- ausbah 3y ago>If most of my colleagues and the owners of the company I work for decide they prefer to work in an office, why would I enforce my will upon them but this isn't the case, it's management making BS decisions no one really likes. the market is in favor of capital & management in the current market climate so collective action is the only way to push back imo
- thih9 3y agoWhat do you mean by BS? Is it really BS? Perhaps it’s genuinely easier for the management to keep people in the office?
- krainboltgreene 3y agoShow me your deed to the factory or board of directors signature.
- thih9 3y agoI don't follow. What do you mean?
- dymk 3y agoA tragedy of the commons has never been solved without centralized organization, and the “but the market will fix it!” responses are frankly just boring now
- hablog 3y agoHow is this a tragedy of the commons?
- dymk 3y agoA “commons” is any resource, not just some physical place
- George83728 3y ago> The tragedy of the commons is a phenomenon described in economics and ecology in which common resources, to which access is not regulated by formal rules or fees/taxes levied based on individual use, tend to become depleted Okay but with remote work, what's the unregulated common resource being depleted or ruined?
- dymk 3y agoRemote work at Blizzard for Blizzard employees is the resource we’re talking about here
- George83728 3y agoThe suggestion to which you responded was "Or you know, you can quit and go to a full-remote company." The "commons" would be the entire job market for games programmers, not this company specifically.
- bheadmaster 3y ago[flagged]
- George83728 3y agoI earnestly don't know what he's trying to say.
- 3y ago
- cratermoon 3y ago> go to a full-remote company How many stories have we seen now where employers have reneged on their fully remote forever policies?
- surgical_fire 3y agoWhy not both?
- TheSoftwareGuy 3y agoQuitting simply has much higher frictional costs as an employee than as an employer. As a result employers will always have more leverage, including your next employer.
- user68858788 3y agoBlizzard took surveys that showed the majority want permanent remote.
- darth_avocado 3y agoAt this point it’s almost sad that we can say “the market will fix itself” and give up any conversations about improving situations. Market only fixes itself if the power dynamics are the same on both sides, which are not. “Go to a full remote company” only works for you ironically is because not enough people are doing it. Say only 20 jobs in the market offered remote work and there were 2000 people looking for remote work, would you say “just quit if you don’t like it” work as you’re suggesting? Because remember, companies can hire a replacement but you can’t find another job. Ironically, quit if you don’t like it only works at scale if there is collective action. And collective action is hard if you’re doing it on your own, separately from everyone else.
- pierat 3y agoBasically, I disregard *ANYONE* who cows about "the market". The market is Moloch : https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ If you could get your first born's weight in $precious_thing , you'd have a line of people doing just that. Sell a piece of your humanity and autonomy? Cool! Hell, "the market" people would reinstitute slavery if they could.... Oh, wait, they did. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/economics/indentured-servitude-nurses-hit-hefty-debt-trying-leave-hospitals-rcna74204 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/economics/indentured-servit... "The market" is whatever the fuck you can get away with to get even more money for you. Most are ethical-ish, but if you look too hard, you might see the 10 year olds in the butcher plant, or the 8 year olds assembling your Apple shit. I think that summarizes what I think of anyone who leans on "the market".
- burnished 3y agoYou're not wrong. Its also worth pointing out that 'the market' memes that people lean on have other requirements; the most crucial is buyers and sellers having equal power, which the labor market immediately discards, by dint of the relative urgency and immediate outcomes of failing to make a deal on the market. A person selling labor has to balance their price against the urgency to secure food, shelter, and access to medical care. A company buying labor can frequently afford to wait months or even years and it may not even make sense for them to hire some one at market rate - the more you pay someone the more others expect to be paid and the more they expect to see their own salary grow. It's something to reflect on when people think companies are behaving stupidly for having interview processes that leave unfilled positions for months - the buyers on the market have fewer and different pressures than the sellers, maybe what they are doing isn't stupid just inhuman.
- yamtaddle 3y agoCould do that, or could unionize. > If most of my colleagues and the owners of the company I work for decide they prefer to work in an office If most of your colleagues prefer the office, I assume your union wouldn't push for mandatory WFH. As for the owners—well, reducing the effect of their preferences on the experience of workers is the point of a union.