3 ms·

If some people want to work places where everyone works in-office, it seems reasonable to permit that as option. If the marketplace has a gradient of options, w

If some people want to work places where everyone works in-office, it seems reasonable to permit that as option. If the marketplace has a gradient of options, workers can vote with their feet. We don't have the ability to say "everyone should do what I want" but there can be workplace-wide policy. I empathize for people who feel it's pointless to RTO when half their colleagues are remote anyways. It diminishes the in-office experience, and I can respect that other people may desire a workplace where all are present in-person, even if I don't want that, but I can self-select out of an organization with that policy.

Zandikar 3y ago
> If the marketplace has a gradient of options, Unfortunately, we're starting from a default position where there really aren't, not in terms of the scope of supply and demand. Instead, the base position is in-office work, and the RTO's and Management would all argue they're the ones doing what you're suggesting here, and it's the WFH people being unreasonable, afterall, the workplace policy explicitly says to come into the office, at exact times, with exact places for you to go and do your work, and that's a policy that's been the default since the modern incarnation of "employment" and office work came to be. So you can't just quit and go work somewhere else that matches your "culture", because the policies in place at most of these companies aren't crafted to fit, synergize or otherwise work with the companies culture. Their largely born out of legal liabilities and ongoing service contracts and legal agreements and leases and stuff that would be expensive to break. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but they take one look at all that and start to panic as that is such a huge fundamental shift in organization, because the worst shift of all for going WFH for existing offices is that fear that middle management has that their employees can't be trusted, because they haven't trusted them or treated them with respect or really treated them as anything other than a disposable cog in the machine. Sure, plenty of places do care, and are transitioning/embracing WFH great. But we're talking about corporate America here and the trend setters and large employers that tend to set the pace and policy of the rest of the corporate world. There is no empathy when the bottom line is threatened for many of these institutions, and while they may even agree the end result would be superior to the previous way, they all too often view the cost of transition too high to be worth it, or at least, too high to be able to sell it too investors. I am glad the discussion is happening though, that alone is such huge progress that me in 2019 wouldn't have expected in the next few years.

Zandikar 3y ago

> If the marketplace has a gradient of options, Unfortunately, we're starting from a default position where there really aren't, not in terms of the scope of supply and demand. Instead, the base position is in-office work, and the RTO's and Management would all argue they're the ones doing what you're suggesting here, and it's the WFH people being unreasonable, afterall, the workplace policy explicitly says to come into the office, at exact times, with exact places for you to go and do your work, and that's a policy that's been the default since the modern incarnation of "employment" and office work came to be. So you can't just quit and go work somewhere else that matches your "culture", because the policies in place at most of these companies aren't crafted to fit, synergize or otherwise work with the companies culture. Their largely born out of legal liabilities and ongoing service contracts and legal agreements and leases and stuff that would be expensive to break. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but they take one look at all that and start to panic as that is such a huge fundamental shift in organization, because the worst shift of all for going WFH for existing offices is that fear that middle management has that their employees can't be trusted, because they haven't trusted them or treated them with respect or really treated them as anything other than a disposable cog in the machine. Sure, plenty of places do care, and are transitioning/embracing WFH great. But we're talking about corporate America here and the trend setters and large employers that tend to set the pace and policy of the rest of the corporate world. There is no empathy when the bottom line is threatened for many of these institutions, and while they may even agree the end result would be superior to the previous way, they all too often view the cost of transition too high to be worth it, or at least, too high to be able to sell it too investors. I am glad the discussion is happening though, that alone is such huge progress that me in 2019 wouldn't have expected in the next few years.