3 ms·

While as much I empathize with tech workers (being one of them) at this point I feel automation and efficiencies they have developed in last 3-4 decades that di

by geodel 2y ago

While as much I empathize with tech workers (being one of them) at this point I feel automation and efficiencies they have developed in last 3-4 decades that displaced middle class jobs and skills are now good enough to displace large chunk of tech workers themselves. Elite tech workers at top cloud/ software based companies can vehemently disagree but for mid level IT folks at typical enterprise shops situation is far more gloomier than it was even 10 years back. Now if these employees are ready to revolt I suspect it will most fine by employers.

pessimizer 2y ago
The ones doing covert layoffs through revoking WFH are praying for mass walkouts that they can turn into lockouts.
- SauciestGNU 2y ago
  This is an interesting theory. To what end? To replace the entire American workforce with cheaper offshore labor?
  - gitt67887yt7bg 2y ago
    It's to weed out the types of ego-driven employees who like to threaten lawsuits and publicly complain about the companies they work for. They'll lose some productive individuals.. but companies need their full teams to build success together, not just a series of individuals working for their own personal success at the expense of the team. If any individual could complete the product on their own, then the company itself would be pointless. Individual success is not mutually exclusive to team success, but the people who do not work well on teams are unlikely to return to office (or tolerate similar actions). Companies know this, and they've learned they can't find toxic employees by looking at individual success alone. There's other ways to find this dysfunction, but looking at team metrics instead of individual means you have to cut an entire team to try and force out maybe a few employees who actively hate the company. RTO is a unique opportunity to try a different, and perhaps more targeted approach. There will still be an some great team members lost for purely physical reasons, but perhaps fewer than firing entire teams.
- rapjr9 2y ago
  If you are fired you get unemployment (which the company has to pay). If you walk out you get no unemployment benefits. A better strategy to use if WFH is enforced with the goal of getting workers to quit is to just keep working from home and let them fire you, at least in terms of your income. You'll have to convince your next employer that you weren't fired for performance reasons. In any case companies that are trying to force workers to quit may be doing it to save money on unemployment benefits. If you already have another job lined up then quitting is the right thing to do, but otherwise think about the consequences to your income.
danaris 2y ago
Blaming this on the tech workers, or the automation technologies themselves, misses the true source of the problem: the business owners who take the profit all for themselves, rather than allowing it to be enjoyed by all. The promise of automation is that people should be able to work less and still be paid enough to live comfortably.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
  > the business owners who take the profit all for themselves When has this ever not been true? And how would it be fixed? "it is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism"
  - itchyouch 2y ago
    When the incentives aligned. Pretty sure during the 90+% tax rate era offered insane incentives to reinvest into the business and employees. I don't think we need to get rid of capitalism. The controls around capitalism like taxes, social safety nets, could use a little fine tuning. Capitalism at its core is still pretty efficient compared to everything else. The hyper efficiency needs to not throw the baby (regular folks) out with the bath water(cutting expenses), that’s all.
  - danaris 2y ago
    While there have certainly always been greedy people, and greedy owners, there has been a very visible shift within my lifetime (~40 years). Previously, the general rule was that a business was there to produce a good or provide a service, and the profit they made (if any) was the reward for that. There were some businesses that acted much more greedy, but overall it was clear that this was how business worked. Now, the rule is much more that a business is there to make as much profit as possible, and the good they produce or service they provide is purely a means to that end—and, in many cases, largely an undesirable one. Again, there are still some businesses that operate based on the older philosophy, but overall this is the prevailing atmosphere. This is what I would describe as the dividing line between "capitalism" and "late-stage capitalism". As for an end to capitalism: "We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." ― Ursula K. Le Guin

by geodel 2y ago

pessimizer 2y ago

The ones doing covert layoffs through revoking WFH are praying for mass walkouts that they can turn into lockouts.

SauciestGNU 2y ago
This is an interesting theory. To what end? To replace the entire American workforce with cheaper offshore labor?
- gitt67887yt7bg 2y ago
  It's to weed out the types of ego-driven employees who like to threaten lawsuits and publicly complain about the companies they work for. They'll lose some productive individuals.. but companies need their full teams to build success together, not just a series of individuals working for their own personal success at the expense of the team. If any individual could complete the product on their own, then the company itself would be pointless. Individual success is not mutually exclusive to team success, but the people who do not work well on teams are unlikely to return to office (or tolerate similar actions). Companies know this, and they've learned they can't find toxic employees by looking at individual success alone. There's other ways to find this dysfunction, but looking at team metrics instead of individual means you have to cut an entire team to try and force out maybe a few employees who actively hate the company. RTO is a unique opportunity to try a different, and perhaps more targeted approach. There will still be an some great team members lost for purely physical reasons, but perhaps fewer than firing entire teams.
rapjr9 2y ago
If you are fired you get unemployment (which the company has to pay). If you walk out you get no unemployment benefits. A better strategy to use if WFH is enforced with the goal of getting workers to quit is to just keep working from home and let them fire you, at least in terms of your income. You'll have to convince your next employer that you weren't fired for performance reasons. In any case companies that are trying to force workers to quit may be doing it to save money on unemployment benefits. If you already have another job lined up then quitting is the right thing to do, but otherwise think about the consequences to your income.

danaris 2y ago

Blaming this on the tech workers, or the automation technologies themselves, misses the true source of the problem: the business owners who take the profit all for themselves, rather than allowing it to be enjoyed by all. The promise of automation is that people should be able to work less and still be paid enough to live comfortably.

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
> the business owners who take the profit all for themselves When has this ever not been true? And how would it be fixed? "it is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism"
- itchyouch 2y ago
  When the incentives aligned. Pretty sure during the 90+% tax rate era offered insane incentives to reinvest into the business and employees. I don't think we need to get rid of capitalism. The controls around capitalism like taxes, social safety nets, could use a little fine tuning. Capitalism at its core is still pretty efficient compared to everything else. The hyper efficiency needs to not throw the baby (regular folks) out with the bath water(cutting expenses), that’s all.
- danaris 2y ago
  While there have certainly always been greedy people, and greedy owners, there has been a very visible shift within my lifetime (~40 years). Previously, the general rule was that a business was there to produce a good or provide a service, and the profit they made (if any) was the reward for that. There were some businesses that acted much more greedy, but overall it was clear that this was how business worked. Now, the rule is much more that a business is there to make as much profit as possible, and the good they produce or service they provide is purely a means to that end—and, in many cases, largely an undesirable one. Again, there are still some businesses that operate based on the older philosophy, but overall this is the prevailing atmosphere. This is what I would describe as the dividing line between "capitalism" and "late-stage capitalism". As for an end to capitalism: "We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." ― Ursula K. Le Guin