4 ms·

> And it’s not just the currently disabled but caregivers as well. I had a PM that was caring for aging parents and we could hear her feeding them as we were on

by WWLink 2y ago

> And it’s not just the currently disabled but caregivers as well. I had a PM that was caring for aging parents and we could hear her feeding them as we were on calls trying to unbork a business process that wouldn’t let us give customers the software licenses they paid for. I fall into the caregiver bucket, and I'll present an argument I was hearing a lot on linkedin and those kinda places in favor of RTO: Some companies and bosses think that if you're on the clock you shouldn't be taking care of your family. The reality is a lot more complicated. WFH means I can spend 20 minutes resolving a problem that would've taken me half a day before - driving home, resolving the issue, driving back, finding parking, getting back into the right mindset to do work, etc. It also means I can join meetings that I otherwise wouldn't have been able to join. (like in your example, the coworker feeding their parents). Admittedly your coworker should probably invest in a mute button lol. Anyway, yea, WFH is a huge enabler! But I guess some people are kinda ableist/unfair about it. It's silly. Life goes on. We shouldn't be playing this game of competing on how hard we can lick boots.

otteromkram 2y ago
LinkedIn has an agenda to push, for sure. Screw that website. As for the, "if you're clocked in, you should be working," that would mean in-office employees are working 100% of the time they're clocked in. Have them prove that this is the case. Then look at productivity during the pandemic vs now and let then explain how WFH hampered those numbers. Just a ridiculous mindset by boomers who should have retired a decade ago.
- tick_tock_tick 2y ago
  > Then look at productivity during the pandemic vs now and let then explain how WFH hampered those numbers. I thought in general it was widely agreed upon at this point WFH is at-least a 10% drop in productivity. Stanford has been doing plenty of research in this area. The argument in favor of WFH has for the most part moved on to now cost savings from not having offices lets you hire more people to make up for the loss in productivity. https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/working-paper/evolution-working-home https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/working-paper/evolut...
  - faeriechangling 2y ago
    Work from home might result in 90% productivity. A disabled employee out of work certainly results in 0% productivity.
  - WWLink 2y ago
    > I thought in general it was widely agreed upon at this point WFH is at-least a 10% drop in productivity. Stanford has been doing plenty of research in this area. The argument in favor of WFH has for the most part moved on to now cost savings from not having offices lets you hire more people to make up for the loss in productivity. I wonder if they covered that people working from home may get sick less and work longer hours. Ye gods, I can concentrate better at home than I can in an open floorplan office lol :D
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
GarnetFloride 2y ago
Exactly, they would rather lose a worker for half a day than 20 minutes. Talk about penny wise and pound foolish.

by WWLink 2y ago

otteromkram 2y ago

LinkedIn has an agenda to push, for sure. Screw that website. As for the, "if you're clocked in, you should be working," that would mean in-office employees are working 100% of the time they're clocked in. Have them prove that this is the case. Then look at productivity during the pandemic vs now and let then explain how WFH hampered those numbers. Just a ridiculous mindset by boomers who should have retired a decade ago.

tick_tock_tick 2y ago
> Then look at productivity during the pandemic vs now and let then explain how WFH hampered those numbers. I thought in general it was widely agreed upon at this point WFH is at-least a 10% drop in productivity. Stanford has been doing plenty of research in this area. The argument in favor of WFH has for the most part moved on to now cost savings from not having offices lets you hire more people to make up for the loss in productivity. https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/working-paper/evolution-working-home https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/working-paper/evolut...
- faeriechangling 2y ago
  Work from home might result in 90% productivity. A disabled employee out of work certainly results in 0% productivity.
- WWLink 2y ago
  > I thought in general it was widely agreed upon at this point WFH is at-least a 10% drop in productivity. Stanford has been doing plenty of research in this area. The argument in favor of WFH has for the most part moved on to now cost savings from not having offices lets you hire more people to make up for the loss in productivity. I wonder if they covered that people working from home may get sick less and work longer hours. Ye gods, I can concentrate better at home than I can in an open floorplan office lol :D

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

GarnetFloride 2y ago

Exactly, they would rather lose a worker for half a day than 20 minutes. Talk about penny wise and pound foolish.