4 ms·
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
by 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?