5 ms·

Yes but a union allows you to come back later and point to the lack of improvement or change as a reason to return to WFH. A non-union workforce has no such ba

Yes but a union allows you to come back later and point to the lack of improvement or change as a reason to return to WFH. A non-union workforce has no such bargaining chip.

dh2022 3y ago
In market based economy the market will "point to the lack of improvement or change as a reason to return to WFH". companies that allow WFH are more flexible then RTO companies. Top talent seems to like WFH more than RTO. In a few years we will see which companies improved: RTO or WFH?
- krainboltgreene 3y ago
  > In market based economy the market will "point to the lack of improvement or change as a reason to return to WFH". this is a hilarious thought. have you just joined the workforce?
- cudgy 3y ago
  Where in the world is this magically efficient market based economy that you speak of? I’ve read of this beast in econ books, but I have never seen it in the wild.
Reason077 3y ago
Why would companies enforce RTO if there was no advantage to it? Surely they'd love to get rid of those expensive commercial office leases and all the servicing costs that come with them, if WFH was just as good or better? I have no doubt that many employees are individually just as productive or more so when WFH. But collectively, does something suffer? Are teams less productive, less creative? Less opportunities for spontaneous collaboration, etc? What reasons are companies using for justification when they make these RTO decisions? In any case, hybrid work (eg: 3 days in the office per week) seems to be becoming the norm here in the UK. That seems like a good compromise to me.
- mulmen 3y ago
  I have no doubt that companies perceive a benefit to RTO. It may even exist! I'd just like to see the data. What are these productivity metrics? How do I get access to them to optimize my own productivity? I have never seen any hard data on this. My performance has always been measured in soft terms, even when it uses "data". It is all perception.
- krainboltgreene 3y ago
  > Why would companies enforce RTO if there was no advantage to it? You'll have to ask them, but you can't possibly think that companies always (or even most of the time) do the best thing for the company, right? There's so much evidence to the contrary in just daily business life, not even including the big news events, that any sane person would know that companies often do things that are contrary to their own existence, because "existence" is not a driving factor in capitalism, it's profit.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
If you and no one else wants WFH, the union isn't going to care about it. If most people want WFH, companies that refuse to allow it will have to pay more to attract or retain talent.
- krainboltgreene 3y ago
  > If you and no one else wants WFH, the union isn't going to care about it. So the exact same as a non-union workforce. > If most people want WFH, companies that refuse to allow it will have to pay more to attract or retain talent. I love how people just assume companies are this perfect machine that both know what's going on and understand the choices made, especially in a thread where Blizzard clearly isn't able to deal with their choices and almost certainly didn't intend to lose such talent.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > So the exact same as a non-union workforce. The claim was that unions would be an improvement. > I love how people just assume companies are this perfect machine that both know what's going on and understand the choices made, especially in a thread where Blizzard clearly isn't able to deal with their choices and almost certainly didn't intend to lose such talent. Markets don't cause everyone to be perfect. They just cause poor decisions to have consequences. Now they're experiencing the consequences, and anyone seeing it may want to make different decisions than they did.
    - krainboltgreene 3y ago
      > The claim was that unions would be an improvement. You do understand that something can have a similar base, but one is better in other areas, right? Surely you get that and you just forgot.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        They can also be worse in other areas too, right? And we were talking about this one area. But the same logic generalizes. If you're in the minority then the union doesn't care about your concerns and if you're in the majority then the company does regardless of the union because it costs them too much to not.

Yes but a union allows you to come back later and point to the lack of improvement or change as a reason to return to WFH. A non-union workforce has no such bargaining chip.

dh2022 3y ago

In market based economy the market will "point to the lack of improvement or change as a reason to return to WFH". companies that allow WFH are more flexible then RTO companies. Top talent seems to like WFH more than RTO. In a few years we will see which companies improved: RTO or WFH?

krainboltgreene 3y ago
> In market based economy the market will "point to the lack of improvement or change as a reason to return to WFH". this is a hilarious thought. have you just joined the workforce?
cudgy 3y ago
Where in the world is this magically efficient market based economy that you speak of? I’ve read of this beast in econ books, but I have never seen it in the wild.

Reason077 3y ago

Why would companies enforce RTO if there was no advantage to it? Surely they'd love to get rid of those expensive commercial office leases and all the servicing costs that come with them, if WFH was just as good or better? I have no doubt that many employees are individually just as productive or more so when WFH. But collectively, does something suffer? Are teams less productive, less creative? Less opportunities for spontaneous collaboration, etc? What reasons are companies using for justification when they make these RTO decisions? In any case, hybrid work (eg: 3 days in the office per week) seems to be becoming the norm here in the UK. That seems like a good compromise to me.

mulmen 3y ago
I have no doubt that companies perceive a benefit to RTO. It may even exist! I'd just like to see the data. What are these productivity metrics? How do I get access to them to optimize my own productivity? I have never seen any hard data on this. My performance has always been measured in soft terms, even when it uses "data". It is all perception.
krainboltgreene 3y ago
> Why would companies enforce RTO if there was no advantage to it? You'll have to ask them, but you can't possibly think that companies always (or even most of the time) do the best thing for the company, right? There's so much evidence to the contrary in just daily business life, not even including the big news events, that any sane person would know that companies often do things that are contrary to their own existence, because "existence" is not a driving factor in capitalism, it's profit.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

If you and no one else wants WFH, the union isn't going to care about it. If most people want WFH, companies that refuse to allow it will have to pay more to attract or retain talent.

krainboltgreene 3y ago
> If you and no one else wants WFH, the union isn't going to care about it. So the exact same as a non-union workforce. > If most people want WFH, companies that refuse to allow it will have to pay more to attract or retain talent. I love how people just assume companies are this perfect machine that both know what's going on and understand the choices made, especially in a thread where Blizzard clearly isn't able to deal with their choices and almost certainly didn't intend to lose such talent.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > So the exact same as a non-union workforce. The claim was that unions would be an improvement. > I love how people just assume companies are this perfect machine that both know what's going on and understand the choices made, especially in a thread where Blizzard clearly isn't able to deal with their choices and almost certainly didn't intend to lose such talent. Markets don't cause everyone to be perfect. They just cause poor decisions to have consequences. Now they're experiencing the consequences, and anyone seeing it may want to make different decisions than they did.
  - krainboltgreene 3y ago
    > The claim was that unions would be an improvement. You do understand that something can have a similar base, but one is better in other areas, right? Surely you get that and you just forgot.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      They can also be worse in other areas too, right? And we were talking about this one area. But the same logic generalizes. If you're in the minority then the union doesn't care about your concerns and if you're in the majority then the company does regardless of the union because it costs them too much to not.