4 ms·

At least it showed the world another way to work. Before covid requesting to WFH was viewed as being lazy, while today I won't even consider a position that isn

• datadeft 3y ago
  This is affecting a fraction of workers. Companies provided home office before that. In 2006 I was working remote with IBM. The interesting part is not remote vs on-site but open office vs limited noise & interruption office. There is also a question if this concentrated way of working, having most of the employees working from few locations are the sane way going forward or having a distributed set of smaller offices with people who's work overlaps would be a better option. We are so desperate to reduce CO2 with all sorts of hoops but ignore the huge saving potential of converting on-site work to something more optimal. Based on my anecdata it would be also significantly cheaper.
• mnky9800n 3y ago
  I'm not willing to abuse children in exchange for getting to show up to zoom calls instead of the office.
  • worksonmine 3y ago
    You can WFH without abusing children (I don't even see what you mean here) or using Zoom (you absolutely shouldn't because of their terms).
    • gruez 3y ago
      I think he meant that "it showed the world another way to work" (what op said) was not worth the cost of the lockdown (ie. "abuse children")
      • mnky9800n 3y ago
        Perhaps I speak with too much hyperbole