3 ms·

what the resistance to WFH makes explicit is that when companies hire workers they don't really conceive of it as buying their labour, they conceive of it as ta

what the resistance to WFH makes explicit is that when companies hire workers they don't really conceive of it as buying their labour, they conceive of it as taking control of them for eight hours and dictating how they have to behave. That's the real reason why WFH faces so much resistance. When people are done with their work they can just play with their kid or do what they want, and it becomes obvious how much, using Foucault's analogy, of a prison aimed to discipline the office is.

unshavedyak 3y ago
I also think it shows how insufficient some management is. They coast on "butt in seats" and call it management. Being forced to actually monitor and assess work is a chore they previously skipped. Likewise ensuring that staff are properly utilized is another chore often skipped and them being remote forces you to acknowledge and confront this reality.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  And no doubt they live in fear of employees actually being productive and efficient without their personal supervision. Suddenly they seem redundant.
IshKebab 3y ago
That's not the reason. Very few people who can work from home can be "done with their work". As far as I can tell the real reasons are some combination of: * Working physically next to people generally is more efficient. Of course there are some people like Knuth who need to be undisturbed for 6 hours, but for most people the ease of communicating in the real world is a big time saver. It really is. * The benefit of face to face meetings is bigger the more meetings you have and the more talking to people your job involves. Guess how many meetings the people making these decisions have... * You're less likely to spend time doing house chores and whatever. I generally do a solid day's work when WFH but even I sometimes just mow the lawn or whatever. If I was at work I would probably just read HN on my phone instead but I obviously hide that better. So this isn't a good reason IMO but it is a reason. * Companies don't like paying for fancy offices that nobody is using. * It isn't the company that pays for the time and cost of your commute, so to them that is not a downside. I wouldn't ever work for a company that didn't let me WFH again. The lack of commute is just too good. But I do understand the real reasons why high up managers don't like it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- shmerl 3y ago
  > Companies don't like paying for fancy offices that nobody is using. No one is forcing them to? That sounds like an argument for WFH, not against.
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    COVID is very recent. Big companies have offices from before that that they have invested a lot in. I expect new companies will probably avoid getting large offices though.
l33t233372 3y ago
Do you think companies care enough about some nebulous notion of control that they’re willing to spend massive amounts of money?
- 000ooo000 3y ago
  I would say yes, but I'm not sure I could articulate my argument very well. I don't think that they explicitly care about it, i.e. "control of our employee is $x which we accept as a cost of doing business". I think it's more indirect, more secondary, like it's a result of other more surface-level concerns. For example, "we need employees in the office so that we can make sure they are working so that we are ensuring we get our money's worth", which possibly has effects that mirror the 'nebulous notion of control' we're talking about. I think your comment is correct in a literal sense. Doubtful anyone is sitting at the top of a tower rubbing their hands together, scheming, trying to establish/maintain prison-like employment conditions.

unshavedyak 3y ago

I also think it shows how insufficient some management is. They coast on "butt in seats" and call it management. Being forced to actually monitor and assess work is a chore they previously skipped. Likewise ensuring that staff are properly utilized is another chore often skipped and them being remote forces you to acknowledge and confront this reality.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
And no doubt they live in fear of employees actually being productive and efficient without their personal supervision. Suddenly they seem redundant.

IshKebab 3y ago

That's not the reason. Very few people who can work from home can be "done with their work". As far as I can tell the real reasons are some combination of: * Working physically next to people generally is more efficient. Of course there are some people like Knuth who need to be undisturbed for 6 hours, but for most people the ease of communicating in the real world is a big time saver. It really is. * The benefit of face to face meetings is bigger the more meetings you have and the more talking to people your job involves. Guess how many meetings the people making these decisions have... * You're less likely to spend time doing house chores and whatever. I generally do a solid day's work when WFH but even I sometimes just mow the lawn or whatever. If I was at work I would probably just read HN on my phone instead but I obviously hide that better. So this isn't a good reason IMO but it is a reason. * Companies don't like paying for fancy offices that nobody is using. * It isn't the company that pays for the time and cost of your commute, so to them that is not a downside. I wouldn't ever work for a company that didn't let me WFH again. The lack of commute is just too good. But I do understand the real reasons why high up managers don't like it.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
shmerl 3y ago
> Companies don't like paying for fancy offices that nobody is using. No one is forcing them to? That sounds like an argument for WFH, not against.
- IshKebab 3y ago
  COVID is very recent. Big companies have offices from before that that they have invested a lot in. I expect new companies will probably avoid getting large offices though.

l33t233372 3y ago

Do you think companies care enough about some nebulous notion of control that they’re willing to spend massive amounts of money?

000ooo000 3y ago
I would say yes, but I'm not sure I could articulate my argument very well. I don't think that they explicitly care about it, i.e. "control of our employee is $x which we accept as a cost of doing business". I think it's more indirect, more secondary, like it's a result of other more surface-level concerns. For example, "we need employees in the office so that we can make sure they are working so that we are ensuring we get our money's worth", which possibly has effects that mirror the 'nebulous notion of control' we're talking about. I think your comment is correct in a literal sense. Doubtful anyone is sitting at the top of a tower rubbing their hands together, scheming, trying to establish/maintain prison-like employment conditions.