3 ms·
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
by 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 agoSo 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"
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y agoDoes it matter what my reason for the preference is? The fact of the matter is that when I have to commute, my performance suffers. That alone should be a big reason for corporations to consider their decisions carefully, because last time my bosses indicated anything close to moving us in we collectively said 'fine, but you will not see us doing the extra you are used to'( edit: and they backed off, because some stuff need to be done). But the companies want 100% in person, 100% after work, bringing your whole self-in, but not while being offensive, but also being brand ambassador, but not in a way that alienates anyone.. What is my reason..