3 ms·

I don’t know which part of that article you read, but the main takeaways were to have front line workers have a better quality of work. Have managers onsite mor

I don’t know which part of that article you read, but the main takeaways were to have front line workers have a better quality of work. Have managers onsite more, increase pay for frontline workers to compensate for not being able to commute, and shift to four day weeks instead of five to reduce commute. I agree that flexibility such as doctors appointments are important, and also that can be difficult if you’re one of two employees working a storefront, particularly if it’s busy. Heading out to an unplanned appointment (what I assume you mean by “nip out”) may be difficult, but accommodating planned and scheduled appointments could certainly be made easier - this is a time when the onsite manager should say “I will be in that day and I will cover for the time needed for your appointment”.

marcus_holmes 3y ago
> Business leaders rightly worry that this divide could hurt morale among front-line staff, undermine perceived fairness, and create new rifts in the workforce. This from the article. My point is that this is absolute bullshit. Front-line staff already have massive inequality of working standards, and have done for decades. The need for people to go back to the office is not driven by some sudden compassionate drive to equalise workplace differences. It's driven by an entire class of asset for the very wealthy becoming almost worthless.
- phatskat 3y ago
  I will agree that that particular part of the write up is suspect, who exactly said this beyond those nameless “business leaders” that are just now realizing remote work is a thing? I wouldn’t argue that frontline workers haven’t harbored some resentment to remote coworkers as remote work got more widespread, the framing of it being a new thing seems disingenuous. The overall takeaway I got is that the better approach is to bring better value to the frontline workers to make up for the discrepancies in “fairness” - honestly, this should have been the thinking from the on-set. > The need for people to go back to the office is not driven by some sudden compassionate drive to equalise workplace differences. It's driven by an entire class of asset for the very wealthy becoming almost worthless. I didn’t see anything suggesting this as a remedy in TFA, though I’ll go read it again in a bit. Completely agree that the only reasonable defense of any push to end work from home is to make up for real estate investment
  - marcus_holmes 3y ago
    > The overall takeaway I got is that the better approach is to bring better value to the frontline workers to make up for the discrepancies in “fairness” - honestly, this should have been the thinking from the on-set. Exactly. Things weren't fair back in 2019, but no-one cared back then because it was just front-line workers. Like you, I'd applaud any effort to improve conditions for front-line workers. But that's not the motivation here, and I very much doubt that WFH policies would be the first thing that front-line workers would suggest to improve their lives.

marcus_holmes 3y ago

> Business leaders rightly worry that this divide could hurt morale among front-line staff, undermine perceived fairness, and create new rifts in the workforce. This from the article. My point is that this is absolute bullshit. Front-line staff already have massive inequality of working standards, and have done for decades. The need for people to go back to the office is not driven by some sudden compassionate drive to equalise workplace differences. It's driven by an entire class of asset for the very wealthy becoming almost worthless.

phatskat 3y ago
I will agree that that particular part of the write up is suspect, who exactly said this beyond those nameless “business leaders” that are just now realizing remote work is a thing? I wouldn’t argue that frontline workers haven’t harbored some resentment to remote coworkers as remote work got more widespread, the framing of it being a new thing seems disingenuous. The overall takeaway I got is that the better approach is to bring better value to the frontline workers to make up for the discrepancies in “fairness” - honestly, this should have been the thinking from the on-set. > The need for people to go back to the office is not driven by some sudden compassionate drive to equalise workplace differences. It's driven by an entire class of asset for the very wealthy becoming almost worthless. I didn’t see anything suggesting this as a remedy in TFA, though I’ll go read it again in a bit. Completely agree that the only reasonable defense of any push to end work from home is to make up for real estate investment
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  > The overall takeaway I got is that the better approach is to bring better value to the frontline workers to make up for the discrepancies in “fairness” - honestly, this should have been the thinking from the on-set. Exactly. Things weren't fair back in 2019, but no-one cared back then because it was just front-line workers. Like you, I'd applaud any effort to improve conditions for front-line workers. But that's not the motivation here, and I very much doubt that WFH policies would be the first thing that front-line workers would suggest to improve their lives.