5 ms·

As usual, the article never lets slip that billions of humans have non-cushy-office jobs - for which remote work is not physically possible.

Molitor5901 2y ago
I have picked up on some social ..animosity towards those who WFH. You make a very good point, there are many, many more people who can never WFH, and I think there is growing negativity towards those who complain about having to go into an office. Working from home is very logical, cheaper, and better for a lot of office workers but the campaign against RTO could backfire if we are seen as privileged.
- brianmcc 2y ago
  all true; there is though a useful point to be made that more WFH-ing office folks does free up transport for those who need to travel, be it rail/bus or just car commutes
  - zrobotics 2y ago
    One thing to consider is that most of the blue-collar workers who would have an easier commute into a city center due to WFH will have their job negatively affected by office workers not also traveling to the city center. If you do facilities work in a downtown area, people not working from the office means you have less work to do and your job is potentially affected. Same goes for restaurant workers, sanitation workers, etc.
- beernet 2y ago
  > if we are seen as privileged This is not a matter of interpretation or view. You are privileged and your comment shows exactly that.
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    I find the privileged argument to be unproductive. Do you work in a coal mine or a third world factory? Nearly every position has some level of privilege, does that make the desires of the workers invalid? Does that mean that every job needs to find the lowest common denominator working conditions?
  - drivingmenuts 2y ago
    If we are privileged, does that mean we should NOT work from home when it's clearly possible?
  - xigency 2y ago
    That's cool but I have crippling debt and I was just laid off. I'm considering signing up for disability or going to debtor's prison. I'm in my early 30s and I've spent way more than 10,000 hours programming and now my vision is suffering. Sure I was lucky enough I had WFH at a FAANG. I give to charity and I pay taxes. Do I need to self-flagellate some more or am I privileged enough now? I suppose I can always get a job at Walmart and apply for welfare because those are not exclusive at all. Lest my negative attitude get the better of both of us, we should believe that society's goals are to improve everyone's quality of life.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
    As many should know by know, the reality is not as relevant as the perception of the issue. Even the economy can be 'felt' differently depending on one's perception of their circumstances regardless of the facts on the ground.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > You are privileged and your comment shows exactly that. It definitely is a view. If you don't see it as such, that just means that's probably the primary way you view the world.
  - PhasmaFelis 2y ago
    It is indeed privilege, and that's worth noting, but acting like having privilege makes you a bad person really misses the point.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
  Now this is the important piece. This focus is not accidental, but deliberate. I have thought how corporates will try to counter the movement, because, clearly, the old guard has placed itself in RTO corner. Splitting popular support ( akin to Musk's attempt to cast WFH as 'laptop class' ) would accomplish that. I have no good counter, but it only reminds me that maybe we do need some pan-wfh org that tries to deal with social media narratives.
no_wizard 2y ago
The target audience of this article isn't workers in general though, its white collar workers who have white collar jobs that 100% allow workers to work from home. I don't think its a crime of omission to focus on the target audience by any means. The Register is a tech focused news outlet and an overwhelming amount of tech jobs are white collar jobs.
- throw5959 2y ago
  How many are there? Not even people in finance/accounting can do that as they need to handle physical documents that must never leave the office. HR, marketing, sales people need to do the same and meet the humans. IT people seem to be the only group capable of doing so, I don't know anyone else in any other profession who would even consider 100% remote a possibility.
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    My uncle was a CPA who worked in finance for decades. His last few were partially or fully remote. Some consulting was onsite, but that was never a surprise and didn't change suddenly with the winds of management trends.
    - throw5959 2y ago
      So where does he keep his client's documents?
      - paulryanrogers 2y ago
        Online
        throw5959 2y ago
        Lucky you, to live in such jurisdiction.
  - no_wizard 2y ago
badgersnake 2y ago
What would be the point in return to office mandates for people who don’t work in an office? It’s not mentioned because it’s irrelevant.
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
Eh, you institute WFH where it makes sense. I am a heavy WFH proponent and I am not suggesting that surgery should be done remotely ( at least not yet, but technology is supposedly improving in that area ). On the other hand, some jobs absolutely can be. Why on earth does everyone have to fit the same mold?
- doublerabbit 2y ago
  Why should you be entitled to WFH and a cashier not? How would you create a mold for like someone above? If automation was to be implemented then there would be no job at all for the cashier. Or is it "my job is bigger and important" argument?
  - SpaceToast 2y ago
    I don't think importance is a factor; it's simply a matter of whether a job can be done remotely. Not every occupation, at this point, can fall under this categorization.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
    Hmm? I am amused by the attempted framing, but it is neither of those. The job is not entitled, but it is bound by requirements bestowed by reality of how that job functions. For example, cashier's job happens to, often, involve physically moving stuff around at the same time customer wants to have it moved. Therefore, they, currently, have to physically be there. My job, for better or worse, however, has to exist in the same time-zone for the sake of meetings, while my output is more ephemeral. << Or is it "my job is bigger and important" argument? Hadly. If anything, I would argue that my job is less important.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - doublerabbit 2y ago
      So what is your reason to wanting to WFH? You advocate it yet give none or is it "I don't need to commute, family matters, can do my washing through the day"
danielbln 2y ago
Why would it, it's an article about office jobs. The word "office" is mentioned in the headline and multiple times in the article, so why should the article mention factory workers or truck drivers? White collar workers working from home is better for anyone, less traffic, less pollution, better home situation (e.g. if you live in a household where the other party is not an office worker) and so on.
lolinder 2y ago
What exactly is your point? There are billions of humans who live in countries that don't have a functioning democracy, but we still find it to be valuable to fight to keep and advance democracy in those countries that have it. There are billions of humans who are poorer than the poor in rich countries, but we still find it to be valuable to fight for better living conditions for the poor in our own countries. Are you proposing that no one should fight for WFH because not everyone can? Or that there should be one of those "privilege disclaimers" at the top of all of these articles that apologizes for bothering to write a piece that fights for improved conditions for a group that is already perceived as privileged?

Molitor5901 2y ago

I have picked up on some social ..animosity towards those who WFH. You make a very good point, there are many, many more people who can never WFH, and I think there is growing negativity towards those who complain about having to go into an office. Working from home is very logical, cheaper, and better for a lot of office workers but the campaign against RTO could backfire if we are seen as privileged.

brianmcc 2y ago
all true; there is though a useful point to be made that more WFH-ing office folks does free up transport for those who need to travel, be it rail/bus or just car commutes
- zrobotics 2y ago
  One thing to consider is that most of the blue-collar workers who would have an easier commute into a city center due to WFH will have their job negatively affected by office workers not also traveling to the city center. If you do facilities work in a downtown area, people not working from the office means you have less work to do and your job is potentially affected. Same goes for restaurant workers, sanitation workers, etc.
beernet 2y ago
> if we are seen as privileged This is not a matter of interpretation or view. You are privileged and your comment shows exactly that.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  I find the privileged argument to be unproductive. Do you work in a coal mine or a third world factory? Nearly every position has some level of privilege, does that make the desires of the workers invalid? Does that mean that every job needs to find the lowest common denominator working conditions?
- drivingmenuts 2y ago
  If we are privileged, does that mean we should NOT work from home when it's clearly possible?
- xigency 2y ago
  That's cool but I have crippling debt and I was just laid off. I'm considering signing up for disability or going to debtor's prison. I'm in my early 30s and I've spent way more than 10,000 hours programming and now my vision is suffering. Sure I was lucky enough I had WFH at a FAANG. I give to charity and I pay taxes. Do I need to self-flagellate some more or am I privileged enough now? I suppose I can always get a job at Walmart and apply for welfare because those are not exclusive at all. Lest my negative attitude get the better of both of us, we should believe that society's goals are to improve everyone's quality of life.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
  As many should know by know, the reality is not as relevant as the perception of the issue. Even the economy can be 'felt' differently depending on one's perception of their circumstances regardless of the facts on the ground.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > You are privileged and your comment shows exactly that. It definitely is a view. If you don't see it as such, that just means that's probably the primary way you view the world.
- PhasmaFelis 2y ago
  It is indeed privilege, and that's worth noting, but acting like having privilege makes you a bad person really misses the point.
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
Now this is the important piece. This focus is not accidental, but deliberate. I have thought how corporates will try to counter the movement, because, clearly, the old guard has placed itself in RTO corner. Splitting popular support ( akin to Musk's attempt to cast WFH as 'laptop class' ) would accomplish that. I have no good counter, but it only reminds me that maybe we do need some pan-wfh org that tries to deal with social media narratives.

no_wizard 2y ago

The target audience of this article isn't workers in general though, its white collar workers who have white collar jobs that 100% allow workers to work from home. I don't think its a crime of omission to focus on the target audience by any means. The Register is a tech focused news outlet and an overwhelming amount of tech jobs are white collar jobs.

throw5959 2y ago
How many are there? Not even people in finance/accounting can do that as they need to handle physical documents that must never leave the office. HR, marketing, sales people need to do the same and meet the humans. IT people seem to be the only group capable of doing so, I don't know anyone else in any other profession who would even consider 100% remote a possibility.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  My uncle was a CPA who worked in finance for decades. His last few were partially or fully remote. Some consulting was onsite, but that was never a surprise and didn't change suddenly with the winds of management trends.
  - throw5959 2y ago
    So where does he keep his client's documents?
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      Online
      - throw5959 2y ago
        Lucky you, to live in such jurisdiction.
- no_wizard 2y ago

badgersnake 2y ago

What would be the point in return to office mandates for people who don’t work in an office? It’s not mentioned because it’s irrelevant.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago

Eh, you institute WFH where it makes sense. I am a heavy WFH proponent and I am not suggesting that surgery should be done remotely ( at least not yet, but technology is supposedly improving in that area ). On the other hand, some jobs absolutely can be. Why on earth does everyone have to fit the same mold?

doublerabbit 2y ago
Why should you be entitled to WFH and a cashier not? How would you create a mold for like someone above? If automation was to be implemented then there would be no job at all for the cashier. Or is it "my job is bigger and important" argument?
- SpaceToast 2y ago
  I don't think importance is a factor; it's simply a matter of whether a job can be done remotely. Not every occupation, at this point, can fall under this categorization.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
  Hmm? I am amused by the attempted framing, but it is neither of those. The job is not entitled, but it is bound by requirements bestowed by reality of how that job functions. For example, cashier's job happens to, often, involve physically moving stuff around at the same time customer wants to have it moved. Therefore, they, currently, have to physically be there. My job, for better or worse, however, has to exist in the same time-zone for the sake of meetings, while my output is more ephemeral. << Or is it "my job is bigger and important" argument? Hadly. If anything, I would argue that my job is less important.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - doublerabbit 2y ago
    So what is your reason to wanting to WFH? You advocate it yet give none or is it "I don't need to commute, family matters, can do my washing through the day"

danielbln 2y ago

Why would it, it's an article about office jobs. The word "office" is mentioned in the headline and multiple times in the article, so why should the article mention factory workers or truck drivers? White collar workers working from home is better for anyone, less traffic, less pollution, better home situation (e.g. if you live in a household where the other party is not an office worker) and so on.

lolinder 2y ago

What exactly is your point? There are billions of humans who live in countries that don't have a functioning democracy, but we still find it to be valuable to fight to keep and advance democracy in those countries that have it. There are billions of humans who are poorer than the poor in rich countries, but we still find it to be valuable to fight for better living conditions for the poor in our own countries. Are you proposing that no one should fight for WFH because not everyone can? Or that there should be one of those "privilege disclaimers" at the top of all of these articles that apologizes for bothering to write a piece that fights for improved conditions for a group that is already perceived as privileged?