3 ms·

No, because that's not how people who wouldn't want to work from home would react. They'd say things like "That's great for you—I would never want that," or "M

No, because that's not how people who wouldn't want to work from home would react. They'd say things like "That's great for you—I would never want that," or "Man, I could never work from home—our place is too small," or one of the various other perfectly legitimate reasons people have for preferring in-office work (that I don't happen to share, but still understand). Again: the problem is with people whose jobs could allow them to work from home, who want to work from home, but who are not permitted to work from home. That's not a problem with the people who work from home, and the solution isn't mandating office work for everyone. That's a problem with the employers who won't permit it, and the solution is unions.

randomdata 3y ago
> the solution is unions. A union is only a solution where workers are trying to screw over each other to get a leg up. The classical example is where a worker accepts lesser pay to ensure that they get the job over the guy beside him who wants more money. A union sets up a 'brotherhood' where the workers mutually agree to not undercut each other like that, allowing them to maximize their benefit. Unions are not effective where the company is driving the bus. Going back to the classical example, a company that has decided that the work is worth $x and not a penny more, no union is not going to eke out more than $x. If a company is hell bent on the office being strictly necessary, there is nothing a union can do to change that. Only if a worker is trying to screw over another worker by dutifully showing up to the office, where the company would otherwise be lenient towards WFH if that were their only choice, might a union be effective. Granted, perhaps you misspoke and this is what you really meant? But that questions how effective the 'brotherhood' is when people are isolated from each other. It is one thing to honour your promise to other workers when you have to see them every day and face their scorn if you break the promise and continue to be an asshole. It is quite another when you have no connection to the other 'brothers' whatsoever – where you have probably never met, and may not even know that they exist. Unions are usually quite protective to ensure that doesn't happen. There is good reason why a software developer isn't normally welcome into a teachers union, for example. What successful WFH-focused unions that have stood the test of time can we look at? The various farmer unions fit the bill, perhaps, but I'm not sure they have proven to be all that effective. Farmers are quite good at screwing each other over and there isn't much reprisal when they do. The farmer unions that are enshrined by government rule fare better, but no doubt only because of a third-party (the government) holding the 'brotherhood' together. That is not quite the same as a 'brotherhood' by first-party accord.
eggy 3y ago
>>Again: the problem is with people whose jobs could allow them to work from home, who want to work from home, but who are not permitted to work from home. Then find an owner/employer who gives you what you want. However an owner/employer has the right to want their work force in the office. I guess the staff that want WFH are not a large enough body to have employers accommodate them or warrant a union. AI and an increasing skilled temp worker pool probably dilute it even further. From someone who has had both manual labor and tech jobs, I am hoping the manufacturing sector revitalizes in the US. We need real things being made and the people with the skills to make them, repair airplanes and the other stuff we depend uoon, buy or make, and a more balanced work force.

randomdata 3y ago

> the solution is unions. A union is only a solution where workers are trying to screw over each other to get a leg up. The classical example is where a worker accepts lesser pay to ensure that they get the job over the guy beside him who wants more money. A union sets up a 'brotherhood' where the workers mutually agree to not undercut each other like that, allowing them to maximize their benefit. Unions are not effective where the company is driving the bus. Going back to the classical example, a company that has decided that the work is worth $x and not a penny more, no union is not going to eke out more than $x. If a company is hell bent on the office being strictly necessary, there is nothing a union can do to change that. Only if a worker is trying to screw over another worker by dutifully showing up to the office, where the company would otherwise be lenient towards WFH if that were their only choice, might a union be effective. Granted, perhaps you misspoke and this is what you really meant? But that questions how effective the 'brotherhood' is when people are isolated from each other. It is one thing to honour your promise to other workers when you have to see them every day and face their scorn if you break the promise and continue to be an asshole. It is quite another when you have no connection to the other 'brothers' whatsoever – where you have probably never met, and may not even know that they exist. Unions are usually quite protective to ensure that doesn't happen. There is good reason why a software developer isn't normally welcome into a teachers union, for example. What successful WFH-focused unions that have stood the test of time can we look at? The various farmer unions fit the bill, perhaps, but I'm not sure they have proven to be all that effective. Farmers are quite good at screwing each other over and there isn't much reprisal when they do. The farmer unions that are enshrined by government rule fare better, but no doubt only because of a third-party (the government) holding the 'brotherhood' together. That is not quite the same as a 'brotherhood' by first-party accord.

eggy 3y ago

>>Again: the problem is with people whose jobs could allow them to work from home, who want to work from home, but who are not permitted to work from home. Then find an owner/employer who gives you what you want. However an owner/employer has the right to want their work force in the office. I guess the staff that want WFH are not a large enough body to have employers accommodate them or warrant a union. AI and an increasing skilled temp worker pool probably dilute it even further. From someone who has had both manual labor and tech jobs, I am hoping the manufacturing sector revitalizes in the US. We need real things being made and the people with the skills to make them, repair airplanes and the other stuff we depend uoon, buy or make, and a more balanced work force.