Companies are on the war path against remote work
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Neat. You vastly overestimate your own power. And your penchant for melodrama is laughable. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
Commutes for work are terrible for the environment. Gee let's all make people consume massive amounts of fossil fuels and waste millions of hours per year to sit in traffic or take public transportation just so they can sit in office and do jobs that we have already shown can be done remotely.
What is the point of wasting so much fossil fuels and polluting the environment so much just so we can keep 20th century office culture alive? Humans are really dumb. Too bad you wasted money on commercial real estate or decorating the office. There are risks in life, companies should get used to it. |
Anonymous
*Car* commutes for work are terrible for the environment. Nobody is forcing you to commute by car. You could’ve lived in the district or close-in in a condo. |
Anonymous
Not everyone is progressive or rich enough to want to live in the district. And buying a scam condo for commute? That's ridiculous. |
Anonymous
Lol. How do you think they power subways, buses, and other forms of public transportation? Electricity magically comes from the sky? The largest source of electricity comes from burning fossil fuels. Buses consume fossil fuels. Even if they use natural gas to power a bus, they're still burning fossil fuels. No commute beats any commutes for environmental impact every.single.time. That's not even considering the massive amounts of waste needed to supply water, heat, and cooling to gigantic buildings that aren't even needed anymore just so we can keep office culture alive. |
Anonymous
Guys, there is research on this, even cited within this thread. Absolutely less cars on the road means less fossil fuel emissions *from cars.* But several other factors go into the total environmental impact of WFH versus onsite. Increased WFH will likely net out as a marginal benefit to the environment. But it isn't the slam dunk argument that ends the case that many are making it out to be. |
Anonymous
If you're not "progressive enough" to want to live in the district, maybe you should move to Arkansas. |
Anonymous
WFH means less cars on the road. Period. People will always use cars to commute to an office. You can't make a WFH vs RTO by conveniently cutting out the impact of car commutes by throwing out pie in the sky ideas like 100% of workers will magically all live in a city and walk or bike to work everyday. What a stupid argument. Global emissions dropped dramatically during COVID and at the peak of WFH. There's really no argument. WFH saves tremendous amounts of needless waste that we burn to power transportation and heating/cooling/electricity for needless office buildings. |
Anonymous
|
So my neighbor in Potomac who is WFH sitting in a 7,000 sf house with central air and pool running all day is saving the environment?
She only worked in Rockville. I had an equal size house and awhile lived alone and I used to literally turn AC to 80 and heat to 50 when at work. I was gone 11 hours a day. I worked 6 miles away. My entire block of big homes have AC running 24/7 since 2020. |
Anonymous
I kinda feel like you didn't really read my post.... I agreed that less cars on the road means less emissions and I didn't say anything at all about workers "magically' doing anything. There is research on the total impact on the environment of remote work. (And it is hard for me to reconcile folks saying that people who want to go into the office can always go into the office, but then says that organizations will no longer have office buildings.) |
Anonymous
DP - I don't think anyone is saying there will be no more offices. I'm a PP who is seeing a lot offices reconfigured and downsized to be used differently - more for meetings, group activities, fewer work stations for people to just come in. Where I work, there are some people who like to come in 2-3 days a week (it's very rare that anyone comes in Fridays, and very few people are in 4 days a week. Even our office managers switch off so they are either in 2 or 3 days depending on the week). But many of us do fine working most days from home, coming in only for big meetings or getting together for team retreats etc. There are some jobs that lend themselves well to working remotely. But even pre pandemic, I worked for one of the major consulting firms and many people were on the road, selling and doing client work. They had to have a remote set up as people did calls from client spaces, from hotels, etc. And before that, I worked for an association. Our members were all over the country, so most of my day was spent on calls with members - not in person. I can't think of a company with professional workers where every person works in the same area and all the clients/members/vendors you interact with are in the office with you. We will always need to be able to communicate with people not in our physical space. And now we are just adapting to that much more given the push from the pandemic. |
Anonymous
This. I don’t know of anyone who works in a job where everyone is in the same office. Most people pre-Covid were going into an office and holding calls with people in other cities/offices. We were all forced to adopt zoom or Teams during the pandemic when offices were closed and a transformation took place. Now it doesn’t make any sense to drive into DC to hold calls with my colleagues in NY. |
Anonymous
PP you are responding to and I aree with everything you wrote. All of it. Except when it comes to the specific issue of environmental impact. The PP I was responding to wrote, "WFH saves tremendous amounts of needless waste that we burn to power transportation and heating/cooling/electricity for needless office buildings." The office buildings, even if reconfigured, will still be there in most cases. So that particular point doesn't track. |