5 ms·

Employers, government or not, still wield far too much power over the personal lives of employees. I think it is rather meaningless to try and understand why RT

Employers, government or not, still wield far too much power over the personal lives of employees. I think it is rather meaningless to try and understand why RTO is en vogue now. Why is the discussion so rarely focused on the fact that your boss can demand that you uplift your life or else you're fired, immediately and with impunity, and what you have to say about it means absolutely nothing? Maybe I am baffled by this because I live and work in Europe where the relationship is a bit better (though I am not sure for how much longer it will remain as such). Americans seem very content to allow this behavior as normal because, obviously, other employees (but not me, I am a great employee!) must serve their stakeholders better so we can gain every bit of efficiency and increase precious income in the economy.

9rx 2y ago
> must serve their stakeholders better so we can gain every bit of efficiency and increase precious income in the economy. The problem with this characterization is that Americans hold the same kind view for all relationships, not just work-related relationships. For example: Married someone who starts making your life miserable? Too bad. It is your fault for choosing to have a relationship with the wrong person, they will tell you. There is no will to extend special concessions to force the spouse to play nice there either. The public is content to let you grin and bear it or end the relationship.
- senordevnyc 2y ago
  I’m so confused by this comment. Other than physical abuse, what entity do you think should be empowered to force a spouse to “play nice”? Do other countries have government agencies that force wives to be nice to their husbands, or vice versa?
  - 9rx 2y ago
    Consider me equally confused. What should be is what is. If it shouldn't be that way, it wouldn't be that way. What, exactly, is your question trying to ask? Are you trying to ask me to invent hypotheticals of how things could be if there was some kind of parallel universe where Americans hold different relationship values? I can try to fumble around on that idea, even if it is a little silly. A previous comment indicates that some people value autonomy in choosing where (as in physical location) to participate in a relationship, even if contrary to the desires of another party in the relationship, without reprisal. Perhaps we can work off that? What does that mean in practice? Hard to say. I've never been to that parallel universe to truly understand it. But, perhaps, that means something like penalties for a party who chooses to leave a relationship if they are unhappy with how frequently another party is physically present in the relationship? I'll admit I am too engrossed in the "American way" to go any deeper with that. It seems normal and expected to me that if any party wants to leave a relationship, it is their life to live and other parties should be accepting of their choice. Anything else is foreign to me. I can't offer much here as a result, but maybe someone from a different culture that sees relationships in a different light can chime in?
    - senordevnyc 2y ago
      Well, I assumed that your critique of “American values” meant that you had some other model of values in mind that would be superior. I guess not?
      - 9rx 2y ago
        You must have accidentally pressed the wrong reply button originally? The only thing that might even begin to resemble a critique that I posted was pointing out that the idea that American relationship norms in the workplace are driven by some kind of quest for economic productivity doesn't work because the same relationship culture is found across all types of relationships in America, even those without economic concern. It is not exclusive to one type of relationship as the original commenter was under the impression of. But that's akin to noting that 1+1 equals 2 in follow up to someone stating that 1+1 must equal 666. Call that a critique if you want, but I don't see how that could possibly leap into having "some other model" in mind? Consider me even more confused than before.
LUmBULtERA 2y ago
>Americans seem very content The election was still pretty close to 50/50. Trump received 49.8% of the popular vote. Harris at 48.3%. Better to say "Americans seem to marginally prefer to allow this behavior as normal..."
- benterix 2y ago
  Even that would be a wrong conclusion. I'm not sure all people who voted for the current POTUS are happy with higher pricing of diabetes drugs, forced RTO and other nonsense. Maybe some do, but for sure not all.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    I am not from the US, but I have a curious anecdote. My friends that consistently vote for extreme right wing are, perhaps ironically, the ones that will suffer the most if they ever get on power. Why do they vote for the extreme right wing, you may be wondering? Mostly out of spite. They really hate people on the left, who they see as smug. I am sort of a centrist, so I can get along with people no matter their political views (and mostly because I don't put politics front snd center of life anyway).
    - wrfrmers 2y ago
      I feel like unpacking that, "They're smug," sentiment might yield important insights. I don't know why and I don't know what those insights might be yet, but that's my gut feeling. I also feel like there might be some analogy to the phenomenon where people who say, "I only give people respect when I get it from them," actually mean, "I only give people basic dignity when they defer unconditionally to my judgment or will." Then again, maybe expectation is what's at the root of most suffering.
      - surgical_fire 2y ago
        > I feel like unpacking that, "They're smug," sentiment might yield important insights. I agree, but I never dug enough to get these answers. I just noticed the pattern of behavior. I think that the progressive discourse since the turn of the millennium did get increasingly preachy, to the point where even I, who am sympathetic to many of their pleas, find them annoying quite often. Another friend I have hypothesizes that what is generally seen as "left" during that time frame moved on from class struggle and economic inequality (which used to be major talking points in the 80s and 90s) to more soft social issues. As a result, some of the lower classes started to embrace ideas of those that blamed others for their misfortune (be it immigrants, gays, blacks, etc). I find that an interesting argument, but never took the time to more thoroughly inspect it.
wrfrmers 2y ago
Having just started working again after a long run out-of-a-job (and an even longer run outside of the office), I couldn't tell you, either. My job so far only requires a handful of tasks that can't be done remotely (and that, frankly, could be replaced with access to a print center and a courier). Still, I'm required to make a commute that's minimum one hour, and approaches two for the method I can afford. My bosses have also taken offense at my "lateness" (8-8:30 arrival time, instead of 8 on the dot or earlier; sorry, the 6:45 bus hits traffic). Lots of downtime. Few complaints about my actual performance. This job could be fully remote. I'm actually trying not to puzzle over the reasons it's not, because that would just make me more frustrated. But, gun-to-my-head: it's inertia. People heavily invested - sometimes literally, often overleveraged - in the status quo, and not especially inclined to be open-minded or rational about changing it. You saw that it took a global crisis where employers were suddenly caught on their back foot in order for remote to gain any sort of real foothold (same for rethinking transit policy, etc.). And then they've spent the following years trying to claw everything back. Incumbency is a helluva drug (and the withdrawal is killer).
- kcplate 2y ago
  When you took the job, did you know it was in office work and how long the commute was going to be? I mean I get frustration if “I was remote, but my company RTO’d”. Not so sure I understand “I intentionally took a job in the office a hour away but I am disappointed because I could do the job from home” mentality.
  - wrfrmers 2y ago
    When I took the job, I trusted my employers' word that the role's tasks required being in-person, against my own suspicions. That, combined with no other prospects, meant either I took the potentially raw deal or face destitution. Now, I've had worse jobs, but that doesn't mean it's right that this one is arranged the way that it is. Not for me or for the business. You're saying that no one has standing to criticize a deleterious deal after someone has taken it, and I have to reject that. It's the kind of attitude that excuses all kinds of exploitation because "you knew what you were getting into." In reality, you have people forced into definitively bad situations to avoid potentially worse ones, or ambiguity regarding the conditions that doesn't resolve itself until they're in the thick of it. Go back to basics: if an employer is made aware that their work conditions are unreasonable, they should strive to make them reasonable, even if they have leeway not to because of a prior agreement. That's just an ethical reality. Such conscientiousness also engenders loyalty and trust; tapping the employment contract instead is why workers are happy to serve out their "term" and then quiet quit or actually quit.

9rx 2y ago

> must serve their stakeholders better so we can gain every bit of efficiency and increase precious income in the economy. The problem with this characterization is that Americans hold the same kind view for all relationships, not just work-related relationships. For example: Married someone who starts making your life miserable? Too bad. It is your fault for choosing to have a relationship with the wrong person, they will tell you. There is no will to extend special concessions to force the spouse to play nice there either. The public is content to let you grin and bear it or end the relationship.

senordevnyc 2y ago
I’m so confused by this comment. Other than physical abuse, what entity do you think should be empowered to force a spouse to “play nice”? Do other countries have government agencies that force wives to be nice to their husbands, or vice versa?
- 9rx 2y ago
  Consider me equally confused. What should be is what is. If it shouldn't be that way, it wouldn't be that way. What, exactly, is your question trying to ask? Are you trying to ask me to invent hypotheticals of how things could be if there was some kind of parallel universe where Americans hold different relationship values? I can try to fumble around on that idea, even if it is a little silly. A previous comment indicates that some people value autonomy in choosing where (as in physical location) to participate in a relationship, even if contrary to the desires of another party in the relationship, without reprisal. Perhaps we can work off that? What does that mean in practice? Hard to say. I've never been to that parallel universe to truly understand it. But, perhaps, that means something like penalties for a party who chooses to leave a relationship if they are unhappy with how frequently another party is physically present in the relationship? I'll admit I am too engrossed in the "American way" to go any deeper with that. It seems normal and expected to me that if any party wants to leave a relationship, it is their life to live and other parties should be accepting of their choice. Anything else is foreign to me. I can't offer much here as a result, but maybe someone from a different culture that sees relationships in a different light can chime in?
  - senordevnyc 2y ago
    Well, I assumed that your critique of “American values” meant that you had some other model of values in mind that would be superior. I guess not?
    - 9rx 2y ago
      You must have accidentally pressed the wrong reply button originally? The only thing that might even begin to resemble a critique that I posted was pointing out that the idea that American relationship norms in the workplace are driven by some kind of quest for economic productivity doesn't work because the same relationship culture is found across all types of relationships in America, even those without economic concern. It is not exclusive to one type of relationship as the original commenter was under the impression of. But that's akin to noting that 1+1 equals 2 in follow up to someone stating that 1+1 must equal 666. Call that a critique if you want, but I don't see how that could possibly leap into having "some other model" in mind? Consider me even more confused than before.

LUmBULtERA 2y ago

>Americans seem very content The election was still pretty close to 50/50. Trump received 49.8% of the popular vote. Harris at 48.3%. Better to say "Americans seem to marginally prefer to allow this behavior as normal..."

benterix 2y ago
Even that would be a wrong conclusion. I'm not sure all people who voted for the current POTUS are happy with higher pricing of diabetes drugs, forced RTO and other nonsense. Maybe some do, but for sure not all.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  I am not from the US, but I have a curious anecdote. My friends that consistently vote for extreme right wing are, perhaps ironically, the ones that will suffer the most if they ever get on power. Why do they vote for the extreme right wing, you may be wondering? Mostly out of spite. They really hate people on the left, who they see as smug. I am sort of a centrist, so I can get along with people no matter their political views (and mostly because I don't put politics front snd center of life anyway).
  - wrfrmers 2y ago
    I feel like unpacking that, "They're smug," sentiment might yield important insights. I don't know why and I don't know what those insights might be yet, but that's my gut feeling. I also feel like there might be some analogy to the phenomenon where people who say, "I only give people respect when I get it from them," actually mean, "I only give people basic dignity when they defer unconditionally to my judgment or will." Then again, maybe expectation is what's at the root of most suffering.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      > I feel like unpacking that, "They're smug," sentiment might yield important insights. I agree, but I never dug enough to get these answers. I just noticed the pattern of behavior. I think that the progressive discourse since the turn of the millennium did get increasingly preachy, to the point where even I, who am sympathetic to many of their pleas, find them annoying quite often. Another friend I have hypothesizes that what is generally seen as "left" during that time frame moved on from class struggle and economic inequality (which used to be major talking points in the 80s and 90s) to more soft social issues. As a result, some of the lower classes started to embrace ideas of those that blamed others for their misfortune (be it immigrants, gays, blacks, etc). I find that an interesting argument, but never took the time to more thoroughly inspect it.

wrfrmers 2y ago

Having just started working again after a long run out-of-a-job (and an even longer run outside of the office), I couldn't tell you, either. My job so far only requires a handful of tasks that can't be done remotely (and that, frankly, could be replaced with access to a print center and a courier). Still, I'm required to make a commute that's minimum one hour, and approaches two for the method I can afford. My bosses have also taken offense at my "lateness" (8-8:30 arrival time, instead of 8 on the dot or earlier; sorry, the 6:45 bus hits traffic). Lots of downtime. Few complaints about my actual performance. This job could be fully remote. I'm actually trying not to puzzle over the reasons it's not, because that would just make me more frustrated. But, gun-to-my-head: it's inertia. People heavily invested - sometimes literally, often overleveraged - in the status quo, and not especially inclined to be open-minded or rational about changing it. You saw that it took a global crisis where employers were suddenly caught on their back foot in order for remote to gain any sort of real foothold (same for rethinking transit policy, etc.). And then they've spent the following years trying to claw everything back. Incumbency is a helluva drug (and the withdrawal is killer).

kcplate 2y ago
When you took the job, did you know it was in office work and how long the commute was going to be? I mean I get frustration if “I was remote, but my company RTO’d”. Not so sure I understand “I intentionally took a job in the office a hour away but I am disappointed because I could do the job from home” mentality.
- wrfrmers 2y ago
  When I took the job, I trusted my employers' word that the role's tasks required being in-person, against my own suspicions. That, combined with no other prospects, meant either I took the potentially raw deal or face destitution. Now, I've had worse jobs, but that doesn't mean it's right that this one is arranged the way that it is. Not for me or for the business. You're saying that no one has standing to criticize a deleterious deal after someone has taken it, and I have to reject that. It's the kind of attitude that excuses all kinds of exploitation because "you knew what you were getting into." In reality, you have people forced into definitively bad situations to avoid potentially worse ones, or ambiguity regarding the conditions that doesn't resolve itself until they're in the thick of it. Go back to basics: if an employer is made aware that their work conditions are unreasonable, they should strive to make them reasonable, even if they have leeway not to because of a prior agreement. That's just an ethical reality. Such conscientiousness also engenders loyalty and trust; tapping the employment contract instead is why workers are happy to serve out their "term" and then quiet quit or actually quit.