4 ms·

> but I also feel like it misses the point. I think you're missing their point. Their point is that it isn't okay to be on the phone blabbing away about busine

by runjake 13y ago

> but I also feel like it misses the point. I think you're missing their point. Their point is that it isn't okay to be on the phone blabbing away about business during your kid's soccer game. It isn't okay to be on your laptop editing work spreadsheets during family movie night, and so on. Ads are used to shift perceptions to control an audience. In this case, the message is that you should be working more and that it's ok to integrate work into family/personal time. It just isn't okay. At least in the world I do live and want to live in.

bmelton 13y ago
I can see that as a viable interpretation, but I don't see that as the interpretation. For a fact, there are times when it is better to listen in on a meeting from your kid's soccer game, if the alternative is missing it altogether. For sure, a day working from the park is better than working from the office. For as much as the negative interpretation could be true, in that Microsoft seeks to engage in wage slavery whereupon all its workers are attached to the company with Office 365 as the tether, it speaks equally to the notion that those decisions don't need to be as hard any more, and that you're now free to work an appropriate amount of time from a now increased bevy of places. Is it poorly delivered? Yes. Is Microsoft really advocating slavery through software? I think most reasonable people should be able to agree that they aren't. Is it perhaps pandering to the Type A workaholics that would rather miss their kid's soccer game than an important meeting? Yeah, I think that it is. I also don't think that's evil.
bguthrie 13y ago
And in the world I live in, I sometimes have to make choices between attending social events and having some work availability. More mobile access means not having to make that choice as often. That's the point that Microsoft is trying to make (poorly). The ads are ridiculous because no one wants to have to work at their kid's soccer game. But there are, I'd suggest, a fair number of people who'd like to attend the game but don't have that choice. Framed that way, remote work is freeing. The trouble with the ads is that they frame that work as some kind of virtuous shackle-extension rather than an arguably-necessary evil. That's a frame well worth pushing back on.
- bmelton 13y ago
  > But there are, I'd suggest, a fair number of people who'd like to attend the game but don't have that choice. Even more nefariously, I've worked (mostly in DC) with a large swath of people who would prioritize a work meeting over their kid's soccer game. Something like this allows them to add in some work-life balance to their (ahem) lives without forcing them to miss a business opportunity unnecessarily.
- pekk 13y ago
  Once you enable companies with the means and the norm to make people work while they are on the toilet, companies will use them and you won't be able to put the genie back in the bottle.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    The idea that the evil corporation can enslave people is, I think, somewhat naive. Certainly, there are companies that don't respect or appreciate an appropriate work life balance. Also, there are certainly employees who are happy to trade an appropriate work life balance for a certain amount of money. In the field of IT though, companies are frequently seeking out more and more ways to entice workers, and offering to chain them to their desk is seldom an appealing offer in isolation. Chaining someone to their desk for triple the market rate might work, but if it ever stops working as incentive, the employees are free to leave. I've worked in environments where the work was put first, and the demands of the job are indeed intense. For that sacrifice, I was paid very, very well. When I realized the impact it was having on my personal life, I was no longer willing to make that trade, and opted for a change. Now, I still work hard, but I'm better able to dictate the 'when' and 'where' of it, and am overall more productive. That is a choice that everyone is free to make. For what it's worth, even in the 'evil' corporation I described, nobody would have bothered to force me into working harder than I wanted. The expectation was just higher, and, I might even dare say, commensurate with the pay. Had I not wanted to work as hard, they wouldn't have pushed it, they would have just lowered expectations of me, and those lowered expectations would have resulted in lower bonuses, lower pay, and perhaps a lower overall regard for my work ethic. It was rather easy for me to just take the pay cut initially rather than draw it out and ruin my reputation in the process.

by runjake 13y ago

bmelton 13y ago

I can see that as a viable interpretation, but I don't see that as the interpretation. For a fact, there are times when it is better to listen in on a meeting from your kid's soccer game, if the alternative is missing it altogether. For sure, a day working from the park is better than working from the office. For as much as the negative interpretation could be true, in that Microsoft seeks to engage in wage slavery whereupon all its workers are attached to the company with Office 365 as the tether, it speaks equally to the notion that those decisions don't need to be as hard any more, and that you're now free to work an appropriate amount of time from a now increased bevy of places. Is it poorly delivered? Yes. Is Microsoft really advocating slavery through software? I think most reasonable people should be able to agree that they aren't. Is it perhaps pandering to the Type A workaholics that would rather miss their kid's soccer game than an important meeting? Yeah, I think that it is. I also don't think that's evil.

bguthrie 13y ago

And in the world I live in, I sometimes have to make choices between attending social events and having some work availability. More mobile access means not having to make that choice as often. That's the point that Microsoft is trying to make (poorly). The ads are ridiculous because no one wants to have to work at their kid's soccer game. But there are, I'd suggest, a fair number of people who'd like to attend the game but don't have that choice. Framed that way, remote work is freeing. The trouble with the ads is that they frame that work as some kind of virtuous shackle-extension rather than an arguably-necessary evil. That's a frame well worth pushing back on.

bmelton 13y ago
> But there are, I'd suggest, a fair number of people who'd like to attend the game but don't have that choice. Even more nefariously, I've worked (mostly in DC) with a large swath of people who would prioritize a work meeting over their kid's soccer game. Something like this allows them to add in some work-life balance to their (ahem) lives without forcing them to miss a business opportunity unnecessarily.
pekk 13y ago
Once you enable companies with the means and the norm to make people work while they are on the toilet, companies will use them and you won't be able to put the genie back in the bottle.
- bmelton 13y ago
  The idea that the evil corporation can enslave people is, I think, somewhat naive. Certainly, there are companies that don't respect or appreciate an appropriate work life balance. Also, there are certainly employees who are happy to trade an appropriate work life balance for a certain amount of money. In the field of IT though, companies are frequently seeking out more and more ways to entice workers, and offering to chain them to their desk is seldom an appealing offer in isolation. Chaining someone to their desk for triple the market rate might work, but if it ever stops working as incentive, the employees are free to leave. I've worked in environments where the work was put first, and the demands of the job are indeed intense. For that sacrifice, I was paid very, very well. When I realized the impact it was having on my personal life, I was no longer willing to make that trade, and opted for a change. Now, I still work hard, but I'm better able to dictate the 'when' and 'where' of it, and am overall more productive. That is a choice that everyone is free to make. For what it's worth, even in the 'evil' corporation I described, nobody would have bothered to force me into working harder than I wanted. The expectation was just higher, and, I might even dare say, commensurate with the pay. Had I not wanted to work as hard, they wouldn't have pushed it, they would have just lowered expectations of me, and those lowered expectations would have resulted in lower bonuses, lower pay, and perhaps a lower overall regard for my work ethic. It was rather easy for me to just take the pay cut initially rather than draw it out and ruin my reputation in the process.