Posted on 09/21/2024 6:01:57 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
“…. and if success requires us being together more often than not, let’s be together more often.”
I’m sure there’s something about ethnocentricity, or privilege, or patriarchy, or workplace toxicity, etc, in that statement that’s worth a $100,000,000 lawsuit.
That's the main reason. It's just human nature. Although, that may be a good thing. The federal government is mostly working from home. So they're even more inefficient than usual. Imagine if everyone was at work in DC just like before covid.
These CEOs have zero credibility to make an assessment like this, after they sent their employees to work from home for 2-3 years.
True. But each CEO gets to decide what is the best thing to do for his company right now. If he wants his employees back at the office 5 days a week, then that's the expectation.
That’s fine. I don’t work for companies with CEOs like that.
Excellent point.
That's the beauty thing about America.
BTW, you'll never work for Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos lol
Where’s the love and tolerance, Starbucks? LOL! FOS, eh?
>>The dominoes are falling, and, as usual, the bosses hold most of the cards. What are we all supposed to do, quit?
Sounds like an opportunity for a light and lean company to poach all the good workers from the nanny-staters. Tech companies, especially, are highly suited to remote work.
I have done ACCOUNTING For over 67 years.
I went to the office every day.
IN 1980, I became self-employed & MY OFFICE was in my home-—BUT I traveled to clients. Never charged for travel time.
First, no matter what, commuting back and forth to the office takes time, and is hardly “green.” The proper business decision should center around whether the job can be done at home or not, and whether the results are measurable.
So, a barista or mechanic or sales clerk CAN NOT do their job from home. How about an accounts receivable clerk, or an insurance adjuster? Can you measure their output? I have worked jobs when younger, where I finished my work by noon. I then had to pretend to be busy so that my manager would not lose employee count.
IMHO, you only get about 5 or 6 hours of work out of office personnel during an 8 hour day, if you are lucky, and the more employees, the less actual work per person gets done.
So:
1)Define the job well, and the responsibilities, to see if the job location matters.
2) If on-site location is not necessary, let the person work from home.
3)Measure output, and forget about the number of hours actually worked. Mary might get her work done in 4 hours, whereas Sally takes 7 hours. Pay for the job done and don’t worry about the hours worked. Frankly, in a well run office, the work should be done in 6 hours or so. If it isn’t, then things are not getting completely done.
Thats what I think. Heck, if your employees can save money, and have less stress, that is a good thing. Think of all the time spent commuting.
It is not a “One hat fits all sizes” sort of thing.
I saw a report last week that said the average company saves $11,000/year in overhead expenses for each office employee who works from home full time. If that’s a reasonably accurate figure, then most of these CEOs are out of their minds if they think they are doing right by their shareholders.
It'll work if your company is small enough.
Or you have a specific skill such as a computer programmer. Then maybe, you can get away with working from home.
But if you work for the government. You should be working in an office. Same deal if you work for a large corporation.
Government is one thing, but why “should” anyone in a large corporation be working in an office?
So people will actually "work".
Ask any company that actually manufactures stuff.
And not just the office.
Or don’t manufacturing facilities count?
Special treatment? Low lifes? That's nothing but loathing rhetoric.
There are employees who are not going back to an office because they were never there to begin with. The company I work for has hired people from four states away since March of 2020. In addition, the company already closed one office and is closing a second before the end of the year.
Efficient? Going into an office to have online meetings with off-site internal and external stakeholders is grossly inefficient. We have meetings we can now schedule back to back that we'd have to schedule days apart due to travel if people were in an office. We have online meetings that we can schedule back to back and not have to worry about competing vendors meet in the building.
We have remote employees who are never going back to an office they've never been in. As for efficiency, they run circles around the locals.
Entire industries went to remote work decades ago. The COVID-1984 lockdowns just accelerated other industries catching up.
If they're not a fan of that arrangement, they're free to find employment elsewhere.
The reverse is also true. The companies can go find other employees, and will likely find them at distant locations willing to work remotely.
So, the taxpayer should pay higher wages for Washington DC swamp creatures for such employees as the Department of Agriculture, instead of paying employees who live in places such as Kansas City, where President Trump pushed to relocate them to?
The Department of Agriculture should be staffed by employees all over the country who live and work in areas that actually have agriculture - not in the DC beltway.
Yes, ask them.
Manufacturing companies had remote workers more than a century ago. Chrysler built an entire office building in New York City while the cars were being manufactured in Detroit.
Since then, entire business lines are manufactured all over the world without the workers involved ever meeting each other face to face.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.