4 ms·
The other side is all over companies’ announcements, emails, and LinkedIn posts. The debate is not between equal peers, but between the few who want to bring ba
by tamimio 3y ago
The other side is all over companies’ announcements, emails, and LinkedIn posts. The debate is not between equal peers, but between the few who want to bring back the pre-pandemic norms because they need to: fill the void in their lives as their lives revolve around work, and/or satisfy the need to control others and feel it face to face, and/or justify the commercial building rents, and/or help landlords pay their debts, among other reasons. On the other side, you have the average person who discovered that they can do the same job perfectly well while saving on commute costs, time, and even rent by being far from crowded hubs, and spending more time with family, especially since they still produce the same outcome. This is not your typical debate, this is a typical power exchange dynamic between different classes, the greed versus the need.
- chii 3y agoWhy are those reasons for RTO any less valid than the ones presented by employees?
- justahuman74 3y agoIt's a bit like when a union forms. The employer's excessive demands eventually fall flat in the face of mass revolt and a steady state is found.
- positivedialog 3y agoBreach of social contract. For years these companies pretended that their corporate culture was all about going out of their way to make employees happy and fulfilled. The massive WFH brought forth by the pandemic has exposed that corporate culture actually clashes with employee fulfillment and is not focused on supporting it. The rationale with their RTO mandates may have merits, the problem is this broader context. This is making an about face without ever openly admitting the longstanding hypocrisy, and this is what makes the arguments brought forth difficult to hear for most people, and I personally think that their feeling is legitimate.
- relyks 3y agoSatisfying the need to control others (and feel it face to face) and justifying commercial rents are not good reasons. Commercial buildings are owned by the upper wealthy class. Are you saying the unreasonable needs of the few to have power and wealth outweigh the needs of the many to live happy, fulfilling lives?
- jen20 3y ago“Why is sociopathy less valid than not sociopathy?” Really?
- drewcoo 3y agoBut surely there's a middle ground! Sociopathic "tendencies." But surely it's nuanced. There are plenty of reasons someone might use to explain away their sociopathy and unless we fully explore all of those, we're just not being fair!
- bravetraveler 3y ago"argue against yourself for me" Like, this isn't wrong, it's just entirely useless coming from outside/someone else Anyone making an argument should try to attack it from another side, but this is weird
- foofie 3y agoHere are the reasons you wish to portray as being valid. * Fill the void in their lives as their lives revolve around work, * satisfy the need to control others and feel it face to face, * justify the commercial building rents, Out of the three, only the investment in real estate is valid and has a concrete business value. However, it's also a short-term business decision to increase operational cost that was proven a failure by short- to mid-term trends. WFO fixes this mistake by eliminating the need to pay an operational cost that you don't need to pay. To me this means you really have no argument supporting RTO.