4 ms·

I am so glad grocery store stockers can work from home now. Amazon workers too, a robot will send the package to the Amazon workers home so they can re-package

I am so glad grocery store stockers can work from home now. Amazon workers too, a robot will send the package to the Amazon workers home so they can re-package it in a box and ship it via regularly scheduled pickups from the UPS and Fedex workers that work from home. (Their home, of course, is the Fifth Wheel the company is giving them to do deliveries from)

l33t233372 3y ago
I’m confused what point you’re making here. Is it that some (non office) jobs require you to be there?
- coding123 3y ago
  It's a statement that will be the joke when this passes as law and leaves out everyone else.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  The point as I see it is that a job's requirements are what an employer wants the employee to do. All of these argument about WFH seem to assume a job's real requirements should be something different. A good example is people talk about companies wanting in person work to drive their real-estate value, ect. The obvious answer is "OK, so thats the job they are paying you for"
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    I'm unsure what the disgruntlement is with these efforts. Job requirements can be modified to accommodate the desires and needs of a labor force. That is what regulation, laws, and unions are for. Jobs that must be done in person will still be done in person, jobs that can be done remotely may be empowered to be done remotely. Employment is a negotiation, not edict from nobility. Maybe you have to prove the job can't be done remotely as an employer. That is a reasonable requirement.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I guess the first disgruntlement is with the the idea of that being the purpose of regulation, law, and unions. Unions makes total sense, but not regulation or law. If a company wants to pay a worker to stand idle in a building to drive up realestate value, that should not be a question of law or regulation. >Jobs that must be done in person will still be done in person, jobs that can be done remotely may be empowered to be done remotely. This is already reverting to the assumtion that the "job" is something different than what the employer dictates. Part of the job can be to meet in person. Having to prove the job cant be done remotely is already redifinging "the job" as something other than what the employer wants. Who exactly is running the company here?
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        I suppose we'll agree to disagree on the role of government and labor unions. Good chat regardless, I always appreciate the perspective of others.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Well I think we agreed on that role of labor unions, just not the government. I do however understand that some people think the role of the government is to just be a big labor union
manuelabeledo 3y ago
This is not a pro-labor argument, never was. This is akin to saying that if some workers have it rough, then everyone should share the pain. Back in the day in Europe, there was an air controller strike where the media tried to frame it as a bunch of entitled, overpaid assholes, ruining holidays for everybody. It was disheartening to see how many actually fell for that message, asking why someone should make over 100k euro a year, instead of questioning why they themselves were making so little.

l33t233372 3y ago

I’m confused what point you’re making here. Is it that some (non office) jobs require you to be there?

coding123 3y ago
It's a statement that will be the joke when this passes as law and leaves out everyone else.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
The point as I see it is that a job's requirements are what an employer wants the employee to do. All of these argument about WFH seem to assume a job's real requirements should be something different. A good example is people talk about companies wanting in person work to drive their real-estate value, ect. The obvious answer is "OK, so thats the job they are paying you for"
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  I'm unsure what the disgruntlement is with these efforts. Job requirements can be modified to accommodate the desires and needs of a labor force. That is what regulation, laws, and unions are for. Jobs that must be done in person will still be done in person, jobs that can be done remotely may be empowered to be done remotely. Employment is a negotiation, not edict from nobility. Maybe you have to prove the job can't be done remotely as an employer. That is a reasonable requirement.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I guess the first disgruntlement is with the the idea of that being the purpose of regulation, law, and unions. Unions makes total sense, but not regulation or law. If a company wants to pay a worker to stand idle in a building to drive up realestate value, that should not be a question of law or regulation. >Jobs that must be done in person will still be done in person, jobs that can be done remotely may be empowered to be done remotely. This is already reverting to the assumtion that the "job" is something different than what the employer dictates. Part of the job can be to meet in person. Having to prove the job cant be done remotely is already redifinging "the job" as something other than what the employer wants. Who exactly is running the company here?
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      I suppose we'll agree to disagree on the role of government and labor unions. Good chat regardless, I always appreciate the perspective of others.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Well I think we agreed on that role of labor unions, just not the government. I do however understand that some people think the role of the government is to just be a big labor union

manuelabeledo 3y ago

This is not a pro-labor argument, never was. This is akin to saying that if some workers have it rough, then everyone should share the pain. Back in the day in Europe, there was an air controller strike where the media tried to frame it as a bunch of entitled, overpaid assholes, ruining holidays for everybody. It was disheartening to see how many actually fell for that message, asking why someone should make over 100k euro a year, instead of questioning why they themselves were making so little.