Companies are on the war path against remote work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People fail to realize not everyone has a good home life.

I work with people in bad marriages, single people with small apartments with annoying roommates, lonely people who live alone, people no place to work at home, people with abusive spouses, young people who live at home with parents and so on and so on.

They were thrust into WFH against their will. It is unhealthy for their mental health to be home.

There has to be a balance between WFH and RTO outside of business reasons.

I don't think the goal here is to force everyone to WFH. Finding people who prefer in person jobs is not really the problem here.

Honestly I'm a little jealous of the young people living with their parents and WFH. They are packing away massive savings for grad school, first homes, etc. And WFH means people whose parents aren't IN DC can do this. When I was in my 20s the only people who could benefit from living with parents were the ones who happened to grow up in Manhattan or DC or some other major employment center. OTOH, that would have been a rough age to make it through 2020-2021.

[Anonymous]

Force everyone back instead of a layoff makes a lot of sense.

My company has two day a week WFH and Friday is a jeans type leave at three pm day. WFH is usually Monday through Thursday.

But we make new employees come in five days a week first 90 days to clear probation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People fail to realize not everyone has a good home life.

I work with people in bad marriages, single people with small apartments with annoying roommates, lonely people who live alone, people no place to work at home, people with abusive spouses, young people who live at home with parents and so on and so on.

They were thrust into WFH against their will. It is unhealthy for their mental health to be home.

There has to be a balance between WFH and RTO outside of business reasons.

BS. What other social problems am I supposed to solve at my loss? I'm sorry but we can't be responsible for everyone. How about stop the abuser, not force everyone to dress up and commute to hide the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People fail to realize not everyone has a good home life.

I work with people in bad marriages, single people with small apartments with annoying roommates, lonely people who live alone, people no place to work at home, people with abusive spouses, young people who live at home with parents and so on and so on.

They were thrust into WFH against their will. It is unhealthy for their mental health to be home.

There has to be a balance between WFH and RTO outside of business reasons.

BS. What other social problems am I supposed to solve at my loss? I'm sorry but we can't be responsible for everyone. How about stop the abuser, not force everyone to dress up and commute to hide the problem.

This is the kind of ridiculous response that will make WFH arguments all sound ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People fail to realize not everyone has a good home life.

I work with people in bad marriages, single people with small apartments with annoying roommates, lonely people who live alone, people no place to work at home, people with abusive spouses, young people who live at home with parents and so on and so on.

They were thrust into WFH against their will. It is unhealthy for their mental health to be home.

There has to be a balance between WFH and RTO outside of business reasons.

This is really dumb. No one is stopping people from going into the office. People can make that choice if they want. You’re saying the WFH types must be denied their own choices and then calling it a “balance”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People fail to realize not everyone has a good home life.

I work with people in bad marriages, single people with small apartments with annoying roommates, lonely people who live alone, people no place to work at home, people with abusive spouses, young people who live at home with parents and so on and so on.

They were thrust into WFH against their will. It is unhealthy for their mental health to be home.

There has to be a balance between WFH and RTO outside of business reasons.

BS. What other social problems am I supposed to solve at my loss? I'm sorry but we can't be responsible for everyone. How about stop the abuser, not force everyone to dress up and commute to hide the problem.

This is the kind of ridiculous response that will make WFH arguments all sound ridiculous.

Explain?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People fail to realize not everyone has a good home life.

I work with people in bad marriages, single people with small apartments with annoying roommates, lonely people who live alone, people no place to work at home, people with abusive spouses, young people who live at home with parents and so on and so on.

They were thrust into WFH against their will. It is unhealthy for their mental health to be home.

There has to be a balance between WFH and RTO outside of business reasons.

BS. What other social problems am I supposed to solve at my loss? I'm sorry but we can't be responsible for everyone. How about stop the abuser, not force everyone to dress up and commute to hide the problem.

But whose problem is it? I was at a conference last year and lessons learned WFH was a topic. One managing director at Wells Fargo and a EVP at Bank of America noticed lots of staff and lower level people had cameras off. Both of them were loving WFH in their huge houses or vacation homes.

But when staff turned on cameras they found staff in unfinished basements, 100 degree attics, working off kitchen table in crowded apts, being forced to spend 24/7 on dangerous neighborhoods. Aside from family life not everyone has a good WFH set up.

I live in a nice big house now with a dedicated office and did WFH. No problem.

But in my 20s I had a non AC tiny studio apt with no internet service. I would have went nuts sitting in a single tiny room all day by myself. Plus I had no room for a desk.

But my office I had a cube, high speed internet, company cafeteria. AC, free coffee, printer.

Companies are not paying us to WFH. I never got reimbursed cell phone, WiFi, printer paper, heat, AC or for office equipment I bought.

They really need to deep dive in this. I think people in crappy conditions don’t speak up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People fail to realize not everyone has a good home life.

I work with people in bad marriages, single people with small apartments with annoying roommates, lonely people who live alone, people no place to work at home, people with abusive spouses, young people who live at home with parents and so on and so on.

They were thrust into WFH against their will. It is unhealthy for their mental health to be home.

There has to be a balance between WFH and RTO outside of business reasons.

BS. What other social problems am I supposed to solve at my loss? I'm sorry but we can't be responsible for everyone. How about stop the abuser, not force everyone to dress up and commute to hide the problem.

But whose problem is it? I was at a conference last year and lessons learned WFH was a topic. One managing director at Wells Fargo and a EVP at Bank of America noticed lots of staff and lower level people had cameras off. Both of them were loving WFH in their huge houses or vacation homes.

But when staff turned on cameras they found staff in unfinished basements, 100 degree attics, working off kitchen table in crowded apts, being forced to spend 24/7 on dangerous neighborhoods. Aside from family life not everyone has a good WFH set up.

I live in a nice big house now with a dedicated office and did WFH. No problem.

But in my 20s I had a non AC tiny studio apt with no internet service. I would have went nuts sitting in a single tiny room all day by myself. Plus I had no room for a desk.

But my office I had a cube, high speed internet, company cafeteria. AC, free coffee, printer.

Companies are not paying us to WFH. I never got reimbursed cell phone, WiFi, printer paper, heat, AC or for office equipment I bought.

They really need to deep dive in this. I think people in crappy conditions don’t speak up

Again, did the company they work for just decide to skimp on offices? Were they refusing these people’s ability to come into the office? If not, why should everyone with a sane setup be forced to come in? You’re just voicing this inchoate concern and then proposing fixing it by doing something completely unrelated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People fail to realize not everyone has a good home life.

I work with people in bad marriages, single people with small apartments with annoying roommates, lonely people who live alone, people no place to work at home, people with abusive spouses, young people who live at home with parents and so on and so on.

They were thrust into WFH against their will. It is unhealthy for their mental health to be home.

There has to be a balance between WFH and RTO outside of business reasons.

BS. What other social problems am I supposed to solve at my loss? I'm sorry but we can't be responsible for everyone. How about stop the abuser, not force everyone to dress up and commute to hide the problem.

But whose problem is it? I was at a conference last year and lessons learned WFH was a topic. One managing director at Wells Fargo and a EVP at Bank of America noticed lots of staff and lower level people had cameras off. Both of them were loving WFH in their huge houses or vacation homes.

But when staff turned on cameras they found staff in unfinished basements, 100 degree attics, working off kitchen table in crowded apts, being forced to spend 24/7 on dangerous neighborhoods. Aside from family life not everyone has a good WFH set up.

I live in a nice big house now with a dedicated office and did WFH. No problem.

But in my 20s I had a non AC tiny studio apt with no internet service. I would have went nuts sitting in a single tiny room all day by myself. Plus I had no room for a desk.

But my office I had a cube, high speed internet, company cafeteria. AC, free coffee, printer.

Companies are not paying us to WFH. I never got reimbursed cell phone, WiFi, printer paper, heat, AC or for office equipment I bought.

They really need to deep dive in this. I think people in crappy conditions don’t speak up

Again, did the company they work for just decide to skimp on offices? Were they refusing these people’s ability to come into the office? If not, why should everyone with a sane setup be forced to come in? You’re just voicing this inchoate concern and then proposing fixing it by doing something completely unrelated.

The company refused to allow them to go to the office. Now they can at those banks.

My old company closed 100 percent of our offices. Then gave zero percent raises forever to people in DC area as we were over paid bs India, Midwest, Etc. They now get people cheaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People fail to realize not everyone has a good home life.

I work with people in bad marriages, single people with small apartments with annoying roommates, lonely people who live alone, people no place to work at home, people with abusive spouses, young people who live at home with parents and so on and so on.

They were thrust into WFH against their will. It is unhealthy for their mental health to be home.

There has to be a balance between WFH and RTO outside of business reasons.

BS. What other social problems am I supposed to solve at my loss? I'm sorry but we can't be responsible for everyone. How about stop the abuser, not force everyone to dress up and commute to hide the problem.

But whose problem is it? I was at a conference last year and lessons learned WFH was a topic. One managing director at Wells Fargo and a EVP at Bank of America noticed lots of staff and lower level people had cameras off. Both of them were loving WFH in their huge houses or vacation homes.

But when staff turned on cameras they found staff in unfinished basements, 100 degree attics, working off kitchen table in crowded apts, being forced to spend 24/7 on dangerous neighborhoods. Aside from family life not everyone has a good WFH set up.

I live in a nice big house now with a dedicated office and did WFH. No problem.

But in my 20s I had a non AC tiny studio apt with no internet service. I would have went nuts sitting in a single tiny room all day by myself. Plus I had no room for a desk.

But my office I had a cube, high speed internet, company cafeteria. AC, free coffee, printer.

Companies are not paying us to WFH. I never got reimbursed cell phone, WiFi, printer paper, heat, AC or for office equipment I bought.

They really need to deep dive in this. I think people in crappy conditions don’t speak up

“Oh dear, we may have to see the squalor our underpaid employees are forced to live in if they turn the camera on. Clearly the right solution is to make them commute into our delightful offices, rather than paying them enough to live in pleasant and safe homes”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People fail to realize not everyone has a good home life.

I work with people in bad marriages, single people with small apartments with annoying roommates, lonely people who live alone, people no place to work at home, people with abusive spouses, young people who live at home with parents and so on and so on.

They were thrust into WFH against their will. It is unhealthy for their mental health to be home.

There has to be a balance between WFH and RTO outside of business reasons.

BS. What other social problems am I supposed to solve at my loss? I'm sorry but we can't be responsible for everyone. How about stop the abuser, not force everyone to dress up and commute to hide the problem.

But whose problem is it? I was at a conference last year and lessons learned WFH was a topic. One managing director at Wells Fargo and a EVP at Bank of America noticed lots of staff and lower level people had cameras off. Both of them were loving WFH in their huge houses or vacation homes.

But when staff turned on cameras they found staff in unfinished basements, 100 degree attics, working off kitchen table in crowded apts, being forced to spend 24/7 on dangerous neighborhoods. Aside from family life not everyone has a good WFH set up.

I live in a nice big house now with a dedicated office and did WFH. No problem.

But in my 20s I had a non AC tiny studio apt with no internet service. I would have went nuts sitting in a single tiny room all day by myself. Plus I had no room for a desk.

But my office I had a cube, high speed internet, company cafeteria. AC, free coffee, printer.

Companies are not paying us to WFH. I never got reimbursed cell phone, WiFi, printer paper, heat, AC or for office equipment I bought.

They really need to deep dive in this. I think people in crappy conditions don’t speak up

We have a small crappy house and make it work. At the office it’s just a bunch of crummy desks with no supplies or anything. All work is done n the laptop and personal cell phones. A green screen is an easy fix or even a sheet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People fail to realize not everyone has a good home life.

I work with people in bad marriages, single people with small apartments with annoying roommates, lonely people who live alone, people no place to work at home, people with abusive spouses, young people who live at home with parents and so on and so on.

They were thrust into WFH against their will. It is unhealthy for their mental health to be home.

There has to be a balance between WFH and RTO outside of business reasons.

BS. What other social problems am I supposed to solve at my loss? I'm sorry but we can't be responsible for everyone. How about stop the abuser, not force everyone to dress up and commute to hide the problem.

But whose problem is it? I was at a conference last year and lessons learned WFH was a topic. One managing director at Wells Fargo and a EVP at Bank of America noticed lots of staff and lower level people had cameras off. Both of them were loving WFH in their huge houses or vacation homes.

But when staff turned on cameras they found staff in unfinished basements, 100 degree attics, working off kitchen table in crowded apts, being forced to spend 24/7 on dangerous neighborhoods. Aside from family life not everyone has a good WFH set up.

I live in a nice big house now with a dedicated office and did WFH. No problem.

But in my 20s I had a non AC tiny studio apt with no internet service. I would have went nuts sitting in a single tiny room all day by myself. Plus I had no room for a desk.

But my office I had a cube, high speed internet, company cafeteria. AC, free coffee, printer.

Companies are not paying us to WFH. I never got reimbursed cell phone, WiFi, printer paper, heat, AC or for office equipment I bought.

They really need to deep dive in this. I think people in crappy conditions don’t speak up

“Oh dear, we may have to see the squalor our underpaid employees are forced to live in if they turn the camera on. Clearly the right solution is to make them commute into our delightful offices, rather than paying them enough to live in pleasant and safe homes”

And pay commute costs they cannot afford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I’m going to RTO, I refuse to do anything after hours from home, either. If I’m not allowed to WFH, that means I’m not required to.

Does this apply only if you are required to go in five days a week? What if it is 2? or3?

m

On any of the days I’m required to go in. It’s basic logic. If WFH is bad, then it’s bad & I shouldn’t do it.

If your employer is allowing you to do both WFH and work onsite, how are they saying either is bad?

So if you go into the office on a Monday, you shut it down completely after 8 hours, but if you WFH on Tuesday you'll put in some extra hours in the evening? Just trying to see how this plays out in practice....

Not that poster, but yes - that’s basically what I do. Each day my hours are roughly the same - up at 6:00 and turning my attention to family/other commitments at 5:00. On days I go into the office I spend about 1.5 hours of that time commuting. that’s twice a week now, but there are rumblings of requiring 3 or 4. So the org is saying he’d rather not get those extra hours from me so that they see my face.

PP asking the questions, and I am sincere when I say this approach makes sense. I also think that organizations are well aware that is the trade-off they are making in many cases...and are indeed OK with it.

LOL. That is a very naive take. Organizations have become used to their employees being way more available due to WFH. You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think they will still have expectations that people be similarly available. You can say I’m not able to work from home and they’ll say you can stay here to do the work. RTO doesn’t mean companies hired extra employees to pick up the extra work that has been dumped on workers that were available for longer periods of time during WFH.

No, YOURS is the hilariously naive take. New COVID WFH staff as a whole have been far *less* available. Oops! Got to start dinner, do the laundry, pick the kid up from school, pop out for a run or some Netflix.

That’s why so many are being called back, and many more will be called back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to strike

This. And maybe it’s time that office workers wholly embrace unions? Especially FLSA exempt workers.

Okay, go ahead and strike. How are you going to put food on the table? It's a lovely little idea for an 18 year old but I have a family, mortgage, life expenses, I NEED to have my job. GTFU.

So be a stooge for the man. Have fun at that.

Oh, I didn’t realize you were 15 years old. That explains everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s an impossible dilemma. Many workers are highly productive in the work from home model, and it has been a major upgrade to their lives. They will strongly resist RTO policies. Many other workers abuse work from home policies to slack off, and the only way to get any reasonable productivity out of them is to mandate RTO. Human nature being what it is, you can’t let some people work from home and tell others they can’t without creating major problems. And it’s very difficult to integrate new, especially junior employees when all the good people are working from home. We’re just going to muddle along in a hybrid approach indefinitely, there is no way out IMO.

I am willing to bet lots of money that those unproductive workers are just as unproductive sitting in their cubicle.

You’d lose that bet. They’re far more unproductive when no one can walk by and see what they’re doing, or not doing.