NYT on "boundaries" instead of telework

[Anonymous]

Anyone else find this article really problematic?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/02/opinion/women-work-force-flexibility-shifts.html

How can the author completely ignore that complete RTO was the first tool that DOGE used to try to drive people out with the Fork, VERAs, dissolving unions and CBAs, etc? So obviously yes telework is something people care about and that can be used as a weapon.

Second the nurse example seems ridiculous. Plenty of people stay in jobs because they need $, that doesn't mean the work life balance is actually great or working for them. Many in healthcare don't feel like it's a workplace model that should be emulated by other fields needlessly.

This feels like a corporate shill with "research" to support the flexibilities that are being rolled back all over. "Boundaries" is so vague that any company can claim that's their culture instead of offering something tangible like a known hybrid expectation.

[Anonymous]

Nurses can work from home depending on what they are doing.

[Anonymous]

Is there someone who can post a gift link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nurses can work from home depending on what they are doing.

Way to miss the point.

[Anonymous]

The NYT makes sense when you remember the majority of writers grew up wealthy, went to an ivy/slac, and have otherwise never interacted with the real world outside of that very specific bubble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there someone who can post a gift link?

Life is better without NYT pablum.

[Anonymous]

I thought the article was interesting but it is also ignoring the facts that there are lots of jobs that have hard stops and don’t follow you home - but they are mainly blue collar or hourly positions. Mechanics have hard stop times. Waitresses have hard stop times. And if you own a company or are responsible for a lot of other people, it’s inevitable that your work will bleed into your personal time.

So yes, the NYT bubble is real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there someone who can post a gift link?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there someone who can post a gift link?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/02/opinion/women-work-force-flexibility-shifts.html?unlocked_article_code=1.yk8.btUv.8wfl_-Sm4D_o&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

[Anonymous]

I feel dumber for having read that article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel dumber for having read that article.

Yeah; it was totally pointless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else find this article really problematic?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/02/opinion/women-work-force-flexibility-shifts.html

How can the author completely ignore that complete RTO was the first tool that DOGE used to try to drive people out with the Fork, VERAs, dissolving unions and CBAs, etc? So obviously yes telework is something people care about and that can be used as a weapon.

This. Also, fed workers had no choice, but I can't believe how quickly the private sector just caved to RTO. Even the comments on the article act like no TW is just fine. WTF?? Why are we regressing??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else find this article really problematic?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/02/opinion/women-work-force-flexibility-shifts.html

How can the author completely ignore that complete RTO was the first tool that DOGE used to try to drive people out with the Fork, VERAs, dissolving unions and CBAs, etc? So obviously yes telework is something people care about and that can be used as a weapon.

This. Also, fed workers had no choice, but I can't believe how quickly the private sector just caved to RTO. Even the comments on the article act like no TW is just fine. WTF?? Why are we regressing??

I am curious why you think fed workers have no choice, but private sector workers have choices?

Private sector workers can be fired if they don’t RTO. Federal workers can quit if they don’t want to RTO. Everyone is free to quit and everyone can be fired if they don’t follow employer’s requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel dumber for having read that article.

Yeah; it was totally pointless.

I don't think it's just pointless. It seems intentionally misleading. And it gives fake cover to employers who have the upper hand and want to do this anyway.

I can't actually believe the author is that dumb. Out of touch, sure. I always wonder more about motives and funders behind a lot of "research."

[Anonymous]

If your agenda is "it's bad that the high paying jobs make you work long, unpredictable hours, and that excludes women" that's fine. It's not my agenda but it's not inherently terrible.

For me, it was the combination of needing to put in a lot more than 40 hours a week to get the career progression I want, plus having to go into the office, that was not sustainable..