5 ms·

I think RTO mandates will be the straw that broke the camel's back, for a lot of Americans. Workers in sectors that previously wouldn't even think about unioniz

I think RTO mandates will be the straw that broke the camel's back, for a lot of Americans. Workers in sectors that previously wouldn't even think about unionizing, are now having serious discussions. Going back to commutes, wasting time, for no obvious reason - yeah, that did wake up people. EDIT: I'm talking about rigid 5 days a week RTO policy. As other have pointed out, having a flexible WFH policy is often "good enough" for most people. Not all want 100% WFH, but taking away the flexibility of WFH a couple of days a week, if you want, feels like a shitty deal.

bloomingkales 2y ago
American society doesn't want to accept that a lot of our problems happen because the parents aren't home. Michael Moore had an interesting scene in Bowling for Columbine where he showed a 6 year old shooter's mother had to work hours away daily and wasn't home. Mine and most of my friends parents always had to be outside of the house during our formative years. We had very robust economy in the 90s/2000s that pretty much sacrificed family time to get it done. This is truly a past way of being. A real past, we cannot go back. We have a way of solving this for many workers and any company not in tune with this beautiful thing is unacceptable to my heart (and hopefully many others).
- rpcope1 2y ago
  I agree but would take it further: a very aggressive income tax on any non-primary earner in a household that has a total income above 2 or 3 times the median wage. I know there's a lot of "line must go up" types that salivate at the idea of maximizing worker participation rate and GDP, but I think life is probably better when the thumb is put on the scale such that only one breadwinner is encouraged (no matter their gender).
  - dowager_dan99 2y ago
    If you think that wouldn't be the man you've got a rude awakening headed your way. Thanks for setting back women & equality 50+ years...
- dowager_dan99 2y ago
  Wait - how can you say remote is comparable with in-office, then tell me a work from home mother is going to look after her 6-yr-old while doing her job and not split her attention & efforts?
  - bloomingkales 2y ago
    Being near the child is important. Our economy was so insane that a new mother/father was not be able to spend the first few years with that child even though we had every means of allowing them to do so (for many workers, not all). Being there to pickup the kid from school is important. Getting lunch with your SO is important. Being in your neighborhood is important. Those two hours of sleep is important. What nonsense perks can a company can offer me compared to things like that. I don't even know if you can pay me enough to go without that (If I have the means to get that, that's what I'll do).
  - tombert 2y ago
    Even if she put in the exact same effort for the company, if she worked from home she might not have a multi-hour commute every day, which could still translate to more attention being paid to the six-year-old.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - riskable 2y ago
    Oh give it up. Very few jobs require 100% attention. At my job I'm on the phone at least half of every day and on 70% of those calls I only need at most 10% of my attention. The rest of the time I'm going through emails, filling out endless bureaucratic forms/documents, doing mandatory training, and every now and again I get to actually write some code (more likely: reviewing PRs), LOL! My performance reviews are always spectacular and I'm the only one in our (much) larger team that's actually 100% in compliance/up-to-date with everything and completing all my work on time. The one thing all those tasks have in common? They can wait five minutes while I take care of something and if I'm on the phone I can do something else entirely while I'm listening. Just the other day I did--the horror!--laundry while I was on a call discussing how we should move forward to solve a problem. And I was the one speaking most of the time while I folded my laundry and put it away! I could easily watch a 6yo and do my job at the same time. Based on how much real "work" comes out of your average corporate office employee I'm certain they could do the same. Employers should give zero fucks about what their employees are doing while they're at work as long as they get all their work done on time and don't cause the company any problems (and no conflicts of interest). We hire people to get things done not to dress a certain way or keep a chair warm in a very specific place all day!
- soco 2y ago
  Another data point: behind the iron curtain quite often both parents were working. Yet the situation got very different form the States, so I'm not sure that's the big cause of shit.
bko 2y ago
So why do companies insist? If it has no meaningful impact on productivity, and workers don't like it (including a lot of managers), why push it? That's why I believe that companies have some evidence (or belief) that work from home employees are not as productive, enough so to wage this political battle and pay loads in office expenses.
- teddyh 2y ago
  It is extremely generous of you to assume that those who push for RTO have the company’s interest in mind.
  - bko 2y ago
    Okay, so what's the point? Just to piss of employees and waste money on real-estate and snacks?
    - linkjuice4all 2y ago
      Organizations consist of many individuals with different motivations, so it's hard to ascribe a single reason to an individual or group. Here are some of the real and assumed reasons that companies are pushing for this: - They have accepted tax breaks or other financial benefits from cities tied to specific headcounts or jobs created - They are locked into longer term leases or own the building outright and want to make use of their sunk costs - They found that (on average?) remote employees are less productive - They want to encourage employees to find another employer - It's a control/showing-off thing There seems to be a financial motivation behind this and apparently employee happiness/productivity doesn't appear to be part of it. I [anecdata warning] don't see employers mentioning any sort of commute benefit/subsidy for returning to the office nor do I see 'remote employment' touted as a benefit so these decisions are being made without any consideration for employees. I guess pick from one of the above and figure out which way a company stands to benefit - there's your answer.
      - bko 2y ago
        > They have accepted tax breaks or other financial benefits from cities tied to specific headcounts or jobs created I don't think that's how tax cuts work. No matter the incentives, it's cheaper to not have office space than to have office space and get some write off. I doubt some city is saying "For every $100 of office expenses, we'll give you $200 of tax credits". If anything, companies track days worked from home so they don't have to pay as much city taxes > They are locked into longer term leases or own the building outright and want to make use of their sunk costs You can always sublease and many do. There are also variable expenses (insurance, maintenance, etc) > They found that (on average?) remote employees are less productive This is my belief > They want to encourage employees to find another employer Maybe, as a filtering mechanism. Kind of like soft layoffs, but its very risky. > It's a control/showing-off thing Also very risky because you just piss people off and pay to do it.
knallfrosch 2y ago
I've heard "The Great Resignation" only 2 years ago about quiet quitters and people who would switch employers in a heartbeat when made to RTO. The opposite has happened. Workers are craving jobs harder than since the financial crisis.
- intended 2y ago
  Causation and correlation. The job market is different. Workers will take what they can, till they land a remote role. Remote jobs are in high demand.
- panarky 2y ago
  Source?

bloomingkales 2y ago

American society doesn't want to accept that a lot of our problems happen because the parents aren't home. Michael Moore had an interesting scene in Bowling for Columbine where he showed a 6 year old shooter's mother had to work hours away daily and wasn't home. Mine and most of my friends parents always had to be outside of the house during our formative years. We had very robust economy in the 90s/2000s that pretty much sacrificed family time to get it done. This is truly a past way of being. A real past, we cannot go back. We have a way of solving this for many workers and any company not in tune with this beautiful thing is unacceptable to my heart (and hopefully many others).

rpcope1 2y ago
I agree but would take it further: a very aggressive income tax on any non-primary earner in a household that has a total income above 2 or 3 times the median wage. I know there's a lot of "line must go up" types that salivate at the idea of maximizing worker participation rate and GDP, but I think life is probably better when the thumb is put on the scale such that only one breadwinner is encouraged (no matter their gender).
- dowager_dan99 2y ago
  If you think that wouldn't be the man you've got a rude awakening headed your way. Thanks for setting back women & equality 50+ years...
dowager_dan99 2y ago
Wait - how can you say remote is comparable with in-office, then tell me a work from home mother is going to look after her 6-yr-old while doing her job and not split her attention & efforts?
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  Being near the child is important. Our economy was so insane that a new mother/father was not be able to spend the first few years with that child even though we had every means of allowing them to do so (for many workers, not all). Being there to pickup the kid from school is important. Getting lunch with your SO is important. Being in your neighborhood is important. Those two hours of sleep is important. What nonsense perks can a company can offer me compared to things like that. I don't even know if you can pay me enough to go without that (If I have the means to get that, that's what I'll do).
- tombert 2y ago
  Even if she put in the exact same effort for the company, if she worked from home she might not have a multi-hour commute every day, which could still translate to more attention being paid to the six-year-old.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- riskable 2y ago
  Oh give it up. Very few jobs require 100% attention. At my job I'm on the phone at least half of every day and on 70% of those calls I only need at most 10% of my attention. The rest of the time I'm going through emails, filling out endless bureaucratic forms/documents, doing mandatory training, and every now and again I get to actually write some code (more likely: reviewing PRs), LOL! My performance reviews are always spectacular and I'm the only one in our (much) larger team that's actually 100% in compliance/up-to-date with everything and completing all my work on time. The one thing all those tasks have in common? They can wait five minutes while I take care of something and if I'm on the phone I can do something else entirely while I'm listening. Just the other day I did--the horror!--laundry while I was on a call discussing how we should move forward to solve a problem. And I was the one speaking most of the time while I folded my laundry and put it away! I could easily watch a 6yo and do my job at the same time. Based on how much real "work" comes out of your average corporate office employee I'm certain they could do the same. Employers should give zero fucks about what their employees are doing while they're at work as long as they get all their work done on time and don't cause the company any problems (and no conflicts of interest). We hire people to get things done not to dress a certain way or keep a chair warm in a very specific place all day!
soco 2y ago
Another data point: behind the iron curtain quite often both parents were working. Yet the situation got very different form the States, so I'm not sure that's the big cause of shit.

bko 2y ago

So why do companies insist? If it has no meaningful impact on productivity, and workers don't like it (including a lot of managers), why push it? That's why I believe that companies have some evidence (or belief) that work from home employees are not as productive, enough so to wage this political battle and pay loads in office expenses.

teddyh 2y ago
It is extremely generous of you to assume that those who push for RTO have the company’s interest in mind.
- bko 2y ago
  Okay, so what's the point? Just to piss of employees and waste money on real-estate and snacks?
  - linkjuice4all 2y ago
    Organizations consist of many individuals with different motivations, so it's hard to ascribe a single reason to an individual or group. Here are some of the real and assumed reasons that companies are pushing for this: - They have accepted tax breaks or other financial benefits from cities tied to specific headcounts or jobs created - They are locked into longer term leases or own the building outright and want to make use of their sunk costs - They found that (on average?) remote employees are less productive - They want to encourage employees to find another employer - It's a control/showing-off thing There seems to be a financial motivation behind this and apparently employee happiness/productivity doesn't appear to be part of it. I [anecdata warning] don't see employers mentioning any sort of commute benefit/subsidy for returning to the office nor do I see 'remote employment' touted as a benefit so these decisions are being made without any consideration for employees. I guess pick from one of the above and figure out which way a company stands to benefit - there's your answer.
    - bko 2y ago
      > They have accepted tax breaks or other financial benefits from cities tied to specific headcounts or jobs created I don't think that's how tax cuts work. No matter the incentives, it's cheaper to not have office space than to have office space and get some write off. I doubt some city is saying "For every $100 of office expenses, we'll give you $200 of tax credits". If anything, companies track days worked from home so they don't have to pay as much city taxes > They are locked into longer term leases or own the building outright and want to make use of their sunk costs You can always sublease and many do. There are also variable expenses (insurance, maintenance, etc) > They found that (on average?) remote employees are less productive This is my belief > They want to encourage employees to find another employer Maybe, as a filtering mechanism. Kind of like soft layoffs, but its very risky. > It's a control/showing-off thing Also very risky because you just piss people off and pay to do it.

knallfrosch 2y ago

I've heard "The Great Resignation" only 2 years ago about quiet quitters and people who would switch employers in a heartbeat when made to RTO. The opposite has happened. Workers are craving jobs harder than since the financial crisis.

intended 2y ago
Causation and correlation. The job market is different. Workers will take what they can, till they land a remote role. Remote jobs are in high demand.
panarky 2y ago
Source?