3 ms·

Yeah, it seems like the hope here is that the "good ones" will bail, forcing employers to re-evaluate their RTO plans and conclude that they have to offer WFH i

Yeah, it seems like the hope here is that the "good ones" will bail, forcing employers to re-evaluate their RTO plans and conclude that they have to offer WFH if they hope to retain their best and brightest. The fallacy in that line of reasoning is that they've never been able to really figure out who their best and brightest were to begin with (even assuming that those are the ones who are insisting on WFH). The only thing they actually measure is what they can easily count like number of commits, meeting deadlines, and hours physically spent in their line of sight. Eventually the protesters will have to pay rent and buy groceries, so they'll get in line and return to office for another employer - after salaries have dropped significantly. It was a valiant effort, but probably for nought.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> The fallacy in that line of reasoning is that they've never been able to really figure out who their best and brightest were to begin with It would be nice, but they don't have to actually figure out what's going on. They just have to go bankrupt when all the good performers leave. (Edit: Actually they don't have to go bankrupt outright; it suffices for them to have a worse product that results in worse revenue that results in them not being able to pay for as large as share of the labor market.) > Eventually the protesters will have to pay rent and buy groceries, so they'll get in line and return to office for another employer Or, they'll go get a perfectly good job got a company not affected by this madness.