3 ms·

If they are tech workers who only need a laptop and can work remotely 3 days a week normally, and therefore 5 as well? Yes, its unreasonable as their specific l

If they are tech workers who only need a laptop and can work remotely 3 days a week normally, and therefore 5 as well? Yes, its unreasonable as their specific location at a specific time is unnecessary. If you don't need to be physically present to work, then it is unreasonable to force someone to relocate or to come into an office. Is it reasonable to tell your factory worker employees that they have to be at the factory at certain times? Yes, that's reasonable because these workers must be physically there. Using broad words like "employees" and "employment" simplifies your thinking.

jajko 2y ago
But you have no idea about internals of NYT, do you? You have no idea whats reasonable and whats not in their team. BTW why people create a new accounts just to furiously comment all over pretty basic topics like this? Are you really that ashamed of your own opinions (which are still anonymous) or you feel your employer may trace you back? Or NYT employee?
- miltonlost 2y ago
  And you do know what's reasonable? I'm gonna side with the union and not the company owned by a billionaire
- dakiol 2y ago
  It's not about the internals of NYT. It's 2024, WFH should be already a non-negotiable perk for tech employees because: - the tech is there to offer this kind of work. It's not that NYT is somehow special about this - it's better for the employees. Would we be in favour of companies asking to work 80h/week as a normal thing? Would we be in favour of companies asking to work 6 days per week? Maybe 100 years ago, but in 2024 the answer is (or should be) no. Why? Because we as employees have gained some rights over the last decades to make things better for ourselves. WFH is one more right in that list and shouldn't be taken as a privilege I'm amazed by the people who are bashing against WFH. This is not about the free market, this is about moving the human race in the right direction.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > WFH is one more right in that list Yet, strangely, your list doesn't contain any rights. Employers absolutely can ask you to work 80 hours per week / six days per week if they so choose (with assumptions about you being an average US resident; obviously jurisdictions can vary). You have the right to a higher rate of pay after a certain number of hours (with some exceptions) if you accept, but that's something quite different. > WFH is one more right in that list While rights can have exceptions, when those excepted are greater in numbers than than those eligible... Good luck! The right to higher pay if you work on location seems more politically tenable, but isn't that already priced in anyway?
- immibis 2y ago
  Do you work at the NYT and have some idea about its internals? And do you think it is possible that a lot of people just don't agree with you (maybe because you are wrong)?

jajko 2y ago

But you have no idea about internals of NYT, do you? You have no idea whats reasonable and whats not in their team. BTW why people create a new accounts just to furiously comment all over pretty basic topics like this? Are you really that ashamed of your own opinions (which are still anonymous) or you feel your employer may trace you back? Or NYT employee?

miltonlost 2y ago
And you do know what's reasonable? I'm gonna side with the union and not the company owned by a billionaire
dakiol 2y ago
It's not about the internals of NYT. It's 2024, WFH should be already a non-negotiable perk for tech employees because: - the tech is there to offer this kind of work. It's not that NYT is somehow special about this - it's better for the employees. Would we be in favour of companies asking to work 80h/week as a normal thing? Would we be in favour of companies asking to work 6 days per week? Maybe 100 years ago, but in 2024 the answer is (or should be) no. Why? Because we as employees have gained some rights over the last decades to make things better for ourselves. WFH is one more right in that list and shouldn't be taken as a privilege I'm amazed by the people who are bashing against WFH. This is not about the free market, this is about moving the human race in the right direction.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > WFH is one more right in that list Yet, strangely, your list doesn't contain any rights. Employers absolutely can ask you to work 80 hours per week / six days per week if they so choose (with assumptions about you being an average US resident; obviously jurisdictions can vary). You have the right to a higher rate of pay after a certain number of hours (with some exceptions) if you accept, but that's something quite different. > WFH is one more right in that list While rights can have exceptions, when those excepted are greater in numbers than than those eligible... Good luck! The right to higher pay if you work on location seems more politically tenable, but isn't that already priced in anyway?
immibis 2y ago
Do you work at the NYT and have some idea about its internals? And do you think it is possible that a lot of people just don't agree with you (maybe because you are wrong)?