4 ms·

I see this tragedy every day I wake up and from my living room window I see hundreds of cars waiting at the traffic light(s). This wasn't the case during covid

by mk89 3y ago

I see this tragedy every day I wake up and from my living room window I see hundreds of cars waiting at the traffic light(s). This wasn't the case during covid, of course, and also during the beginning of post-covid. It seems all is behind us. Not sure what the value of all this is, except for some people telling others how they have to live life.

paulcole 3y ago
> except for some people telling others how they have to live life Don't act like this is a one-way street. If you're working remotely then your employer is also telling its employees how they have to live life. It's just that in this case you happen to agree with them so it's A-OK!
- tomashubelbauer 3y ago
  People who prefer the office can band together and get one with WFH. People who enjoy their homes or even still an office, just their personal one, don't have that choice with RTO.
  - paulcole 3y ago
    You're making a pretty standard mistake often made by people who are pro-WFH. Many people who prefer working in an office prefer to work with other people who are also in an office. They do not want to interact with people who are working remotely. Just to be clear, this is a 100% fine preference to have. In this case, a company saying, "Yeah get a coworking space or whatever and meet with the remote people on Zoom" is telling these employees how to live, exactly the same as telling a WFH employee to come into the office due to RTO. And again, just to be clear, neither of these are bad things. It just depends on your perspective.
    - jdbernard 3y ago
      I'm sorry, but you are the one making the "standard mistake," logically. It's the incel argument. You're trying to say this is a two-way street, that the dynamics are the same in both directions. That's obviously false. It is a one-way street here. The people who are wanting to RTO are trying to exert active control over the lives of others. "You must change your habits of life to accommodate my desires." This is not what the WFH position is doing. The WFH position isn't trying to force the RTO people to do anything. You complaining "your unwillingness to come to the office is forcing me to remain lonely in the office" is exactly the same kind of argument, structurally, as the incel argument "your unwillingness to have sex with me is forcing me to remain a virgin." Yes, there are some things that you cannot do alone, but that does not entitle you to force me to accommodate you.
      - paulcole 3y ago
        >The WFH position isn't trying to force the RTO people to do anything. Yes, they are. They are trying to get people to work with them who don't want to work with them. This is exactly the same thing as RTO does to WFH people. And it's fine! It's just a preference and it's fine for a company to make a decision that makes some people upset. Those people can deal with it or they can get a new job.
        mk89 3y ago
        This is an extreme view in my opinion, as also the previous poster showed. You can have 10 people with 5 wanting to work from the office, 5 who don't want. Or 10 that all want a hybrid model. Etc. It's not all black or white. Pushing for only one way of working or the other is telling people how to live. It has been like this for many years because there was little or no alternative. Now "thanks to" the covid an alternative came. But hey, now let's all go back to the traditional way things have always been done. If a company is fully remote (no offices at all) before you apply you know what you're getting into. Same for a company only working from the office full time. The issue is the companies slowly going back in a forceful manner, taking away the alternative, and all the people feeling "lonely" or having their "way things should be" being fine with that and actually enforcing this. All surveys show people want flexibility, yet we're doing a lot to go to the pre 2019 model.
    - intended 3y ago
      Everyone in this conversation perpetuates a more fundamental mistake by sticking to tribalism. You didnt get paid for commute time earlier. COVID recovered it for you. one hour of your time in this century, is FAR more valuable than time in any other century - simply because you can spend that time on a multitude of pursuits to enrich your life than ever before. Anyone ambitious, self driven will fight for those 2 hours + a day lost in commutes, because they can use it for themselves. At the margin, people who needed a few hours more to accelerate their lives will have fled bad firms. I am fine with RTO if you start paying me for those hours.
- mk89 3y ago
  Traditionally companies have been working from the office. This shortly switched for a period of time, showing that working remotely can be done. Going back and finding no compromises is an outdated view of work that companies and unfortunately some individuals too seem to push on their employees/ peers.
  - paulcole 3y ago
    But you can't deny that anyone who doesn't want to work in an office is pushing their view on those who do want to work with others in an office, right?

by mk89 3y ago

paulcole 3y ago

> except for some people telling others how they have to live life Don't act like this is a one-way street. If you're working remotely then your employer is also telling its employees how they have to live life. It's just that in this case you happen to agree with them so it's A-OK!

tomashubelbauer 3y ago
People who prefer the office can band together and get one with WFH. People who enjoy their homes or even still an office, just their personal one, don't have that choice with RTO.
- paulcole 3y ago
  You're making a pretty standard mistake often made by people who are pro-WFH. Many people who prefer working in an office prefer to work with other people who are also in an office. They do not want to interact with people who are working remotely. Just to be clear, this is a 100% fine preference to have. In this case, a company saying, "Yeah get a coworking space or whatever and meet with the remote people on Zoom" is telling these employees how to live, exactly the same as telling a WFH employee to come into the office due to RTO. And again, just to be clear, neither of these are bad things. It just depends on your perspective.
  - jdbernard 3y ago
    I'm sorry, but you are the one making the "standard mistake," logically. It's the incel argument. You're trying to say this is a two-way street, that the dynamics are the same in both directions. That's obviously false. It is a one-way street here. The people who are wanting to RTO are trying to exert active control over the lives of others. "You must change your habits of life to accommodate my desires." This is not what the WFH position is doing. The WFH position isn't trying to force the RTO people to do anything. You complaining "your unwillingness to come to the office is forcing me to remain lonely in the office" is exactly the same kind of argument, structurally, as the incel argument "your unwillingness to have sex with me is forcing me to remain a virgin." Yes, there are some things that you cannot do alone, but that does not entitle you to force me to accommodate you.
    - paulcole 3y ago
      >The WFH position isn't trying to force the RTO people to do anything. Yes, they are. They are trying to get people to work with them who don't want to work with them. This is exactly the same thing as RTO does to WFH people. And it's fine! It's just a preference and it's fine for a company to make a decision that makes some people upset. Those people can deal with it or they can get a new job.
      - mk89 3y ago
        This is an extreme view in my opinion, as also the previous poster showed. You can have 10 people with 5 wanting to work from the office, 5 who don't want. Or 10 that all want a hybrid model. Etc. It's not all black or white. Pushing for only one way of working or the other is telling people how to live. It has been like this for many years because there was little or no alternative. Now "thanks to" the covid an alternative came. But hey, now let's all go back to the traditional way things have always been done. If a company is fully remote (no offices at all) before you apply you know what you're getting into. Same for a company only working from the office full time. The issue is the companies slowly going back in a forceful manner, taking away the alternative, and all the people feeling "lonely" or having their "way things should be" being fine with that and actually enforcing this. All surveys show people want flexibility, yet we're doing a lot to go to the pre 2019 model.
  - intended 3y ago
    Everyone in this conversation perpetuates a more fundamental mistake by sticking to tribalism. You didnt get paid for commute time earlier. COVID recovered it for you. one hour of your time in this century, is FAR more valuable than time in any other century - simply because you can spend that time on a multitude of pursuits to enrich your life than ever before. Anyone ambitious, self driven will fight for those 2 hours + a day lost in commutes, because they can use it for themselves. At the margin, people who needed a few hours more to accelerate their lives will have fled bad firms. I am fine with RTO if you start paying me for those hours.
mk89 3y ago
Traditionally companies have been working from the office. This shortly switched for a period of time, showing that working remotely can be done. Going back and finding no compromises is an outdated view of work that companies and unfortunately some individuals too seem to push on their employees/ peers.
- paulcole 3y ago
  But you can't deny that anyone who doesn't want to work in an office is pushing their view on those who do want to work with others in an office, right?