4 ms·
WFH has been normal for almost half a decade now. I changed jobs and stipulated remaining remote in that time, and I suspect my employer doesn't care. They have
by dingnuts 2y ago
WFH has been normal for almost half a decade now. I changed jobs and stipulated remaining remote in that time, and I suspect my employer doesn't care. They have begun talking about RTO.
Here's the thing: it's not JUST inconvenient. It's a pay cut, full stop. I have to pay to commute, one way or the other, in both time and money. Acting like this only has to do with convenience is some real bootlicker shit
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y agoIt is also the most dangerous thing I do in a day. Nearly every single day, there is a traffic accident on my route. Through no fault of my own, someday that could be me smeared on the road.
- teeray 2y ago> it's not JUST inconvenient. It's a pay cut, full stop. Never mind the ongoing state income tax implications of being forced to work in a physical location, which can greatly impact the amount of take-home pay you have.
- vehemenz 2y agoI'm considering the employer's position. If a bunch of my employees were working six-hour days and communication was suffering at the office, then I would feel justified to institute RTO. As long as it's not meant as an indirect layoff AND the employees were hired for on-site work originally, I genuinely do not see the problem. Of course, one might argue that employers should "know" that employees will quit, but honestly, are employers supposed gauge the level of WFH cultishness before making a routine business decision? It's ridiculous. Yes, one can argue that it's a "pay cut, full stop" just as the employer can argue that they are getting less effective employees during WFH, or that one's unearned "raise" during COVID is being rescinded. I'm not a cultist, so these are positions that need to be argued for and earned. No foot-stomping. The employers should get a say.