RTO Rant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should find a new job yourself.

Someone else will be happy to have an office.

No they wouldn’t unless they are desperate and no one needs or wants a desperate employee who can’t find work elsewhere and thus is ridiculously grateful for any circumstance

Employers are tired of employees with options, demanding raises and leaving every two years. The work can get done by 2nd tier employees and still keep business running now with automated tools and AI etc.

If you say so but I’m not seeing this. Please provide an example of this IRL

Exactly. There is no AI and automated tools doing most of the real work. Receptionist, help desk - maybe. Real work - Oh Never.

Most people have BS jobs, get real.

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:We had call with senior level management on Monday where our President announced that we're all going back 3 days week toward the end of September. A bunch of managers in other areas of the country raised their hands and said they didn't have enough office space for all their people to sit in. They all downsized over the last few years. Our President was flummoxed and said that was something we'd need to work through.

You end up hot dealing or convert offices to open desks. We are doubling up in cubes it’s terrible. But the market has turned, look at Fridays job report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be honest. Any company 90 percent of workers sit in "cubes" and shoot out product. Worker Bees. And only 1-3 percent of company are in the Senior Management team with Perks. Everyone cant be a SVP or higher.

The downside of remote is it raised expectations once laid off. An old coworker at a very high paid job that went fully remote in 2020 just got laid off.

I spoke to them and I got yes looking I want fully remote, if in person only hybrid and at most 2 days a week in person. Plus I want a short commute.

She then added I want my old salary at least and flexibility for kids appointments and home repairs, dentist appointments during work hours.

She had all that company that laid her off. She also was making $200,000.

She may get it, but when unemployed that is a big list of demands and salary

This is only proof that companies don't care about their workers. If she was capable of doing her work for the flexibility in return, who cares? These offices just want people to come in -even if their jobs don't dictate the need- just b/c they can. No matter how miserable it is for their workers.

Of course, companies don’t care about their workers. Get real!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.

This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.

Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.

Most workers are not high performers. Most high performers I know are generally willing to go into the office at least 2-3 days a week. The fully remote crowd has more slackers in it

High performers want to be in the office, since they know promotion and raises are mostly based on relationships and that is much harder to pull off as a zoom square.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.

This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.

Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.

Most workers are not high performers. Most high performers I know are generally willing to go into the office at least 2-3 days a week. The fully remote crowd has more slackers in it

High performers want to be in the office, since they know promotion and raises are mostly based on relationships and that is much harder to pull off as a zoom square.

No. Strivers want to be in the office for those reasons. There may also be overlap between strivers and high performers, but those are certainly not completely overlapping sets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be honest. Any company 90 percent of workers sit in "cubes" and shoot out product. Worker Bees. And only 1-3 percent of company are in the Senior Management team with Perks. Everyone cant be a SVP or higher.

The downside of remote is it raised expectations once laid off. An old coworker at a very high paid job that went fully remote in 2020 just got laid off.

I spoke to them and I got yes looking I want fully remote, if in person only hybrid and at most 2 days a week in person. Plus I want a short commute.

She then added I want my old salary at least and flexibility for kids appointments and home repairs, dentist appointments during work hours.

She had all that company that laid her off. She also was making $200,000.

She may get it, but when unemployed that is a big list of demands and salary

Me thinks that's why she was laid off. The company will replace her with two people and make the job in-person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.

This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.

Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.

Most workers are not high performers. Most high performers I know are generally willing to go into the office at least 2-3 days a week. The fully remote crowd has more slackers in it

High performers want to be in the office, since they know promotion and raises are mostly based on relationships and that is much harder to pull off as a zoom square.

No. Strivers want to be in the office for those reasons. There may also be overlap between strivers and high performers, but those are certainly not completely overlapping sets.

What exactly is wrong with being a striver?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be honest. Any company 90 percent of workers sit in "cubes" and shoot out product. Worker Bees. And only 1-3 percent of company are in the Senior Management team with Perks. Everyone cant be a SVP or higher.

The downside of remote is it raised expectations once laid off. An old coworker at a very high paid job that went fully remote in 2020 just got laid off.

I spoke to them and I got yes looking I want fully remote, if in person only hybrid and at most 2 days a week in person. Plus I want a short commute.

She then added I want my old salary at least and flexibility for kids appointments and home repairs, dentist appointments during work hours.

She had all that company that laid her off. She also was making $200,000.

She may get it, but when unemployed that is a big list of demands and salary

This is only proof that companies don't care about their workers. If she was capable of doing her work for the flexibility in return, who cares? These offices just want people to come in -even if their jobs don't dictate the need- just b/c they can. No matter how miserable it is for their workers.

Of course, companies don’t care about their workers. Get real!

+1 It’s called capitalism, baby!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.

This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.

Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.

Most workers are not high performers. Most high performers I know are generally willing to go into the office at least 2-3 days a week. The fully remote crowd has more slackers in it

High performers want to be in the office, since they know promotion and raises are mostly based on relationships and that is much harder to pull off as a zoom square.

No. Strivers want to be in the office for those reasons. There may also be overlap between strivers and high performers, but those are certainly not completely overlapping sets.

What exactly is wrong with being a striver?

DP, nothing but it's not the same as a high performer. There are strivers who don't perform, and high performers who are happy at their level.

I'll add -- a lot of high performers who are middle aged right now have no problem with relationship building because they came up in the telephone era and they had to maintain relationships over voice phone. I think younger people have a harder time with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rto makes me seethe with anger on every level.
Imma go make people be a pantomime horse at work because I decided that makes them more productive and I’m too stupid and too unimaginative to see past the pantomime horse thing so just deal and be a pantomime horse

You sound unhinged. I think they might ask you to RTO so you won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.

This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good s ad way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.

Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.

Most workers are not high performers. Most high performers I know are generally willing to go into the office at least 2-3 days a week. The fully remote crowd has more slackers in it

High performers want to be in the office, since they know promotion and raises are mostly based on relationships and that is much harder to pull off as a zoom square.

No. Strivers want to be in the office for those reasons. There may also be overlap between strivers and high performers, but those are certainly not completely overlapping sets.

What exactly is wrong with being a striver?

DP, nothing but it's not the same as a high performer. There are strivers who don't perform, and high performers who are happy at their level.

I'll add -- a lot of high performers who are middle aged right now have no problem with relationship building because they came up in the telephone era and they had to maintain relationships over voice phone. I think younger people have a harder time with that.

Sure some middle aged sales managers can work the phones with their equally old clients, but it has real limitations. What about when your manager is young enough to see the phone as antiquated. They may be fine with a lot of worth virtual, but the relationship will still be in person only

https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/careers/remote-workers-are-losing-out-on-promotions-8219ec63

I can’t imagine a middle aged worker risking ageist layoffs by also becoming a ghost at the office.

[Anonymous]

Remote workers missing out on promotions may just be a result of senior management comes to the office more often, is available more hours on-line and has to travel to board meetings and conferences. Plus Manage more staff.

A SME who works by himself remote full time may have trouble showing he has the skills or even desire to come to office more.

[Anonymous]

i'm so over these ancient dinosaurs trying to force people to work from locations that do not serve them.
They need to get the f over themselves and stop trying to force the hands of time to go backwards. They can succeed in the short term but at what cost? If you can make people's lives better without sacrificing productivity, it's literally ethically your obligation to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should find a new job yourself.

Someone else will be happy to have an office.

No they wouldn’t unless they are desperate and no one needs or wants a desperate employee who can’t find work elsewhere and thus is ridiculously grateful for any circumstance

Employers are tired of employees with options, demanding raises and leaving every two years. The work can get done by 2nd tier employees and still keep business running now with automated tools and AI etc.

If you say so but I’m not seeing this. Please provide an example of this IRL

Exactly. There is no AI and automated tools doing most of the real work. Receptionist, help desk - maybe. Real work - Oh Never.

What do you consider real work? Software programming (yep AI replacing coders though not software engineers), copy writers for advertising agencies (yep), freelance writers (yep), special effects folks for film and tv (yep for everyday FX work for now but will start moving up the chain)…one can go on.

Don’t worry…it won’t impact your real work. Always a good idea to keep your head in the sand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should find a new job yourself.

Someone else will be happy to have an office.

No they wouldn’t unless they are desperate and no one needs or wants a desperate employee who can’t find work elsewhere and thus is ridiculously grateful for any circumstance

Employers are tired of employees with options, demanding raises and leaving every two years. The work can get done by 2nd tier employees and still keep business running now with automated tools and AI etc.

If you say so but I’m not seeing this. Please provide an example of this IRL

Exactly. There is no AI and automated tools doing most of the real work. Receptionist, help desk - maybe. Real work - Oh Never.

What do you consider real work? Software programming (yep AI replacing coders though not software engineers), copy writers for advertising agencies (yep), freelance writers (yep), special effects folks for film and tv (yep for everyday FX work for now but will start moving up the chain)…one can go on.

Don’t worry…it won’t impact your real work. Always a good idea to keep your head in the sand.

I’m 100% sure PP is an Executive “decision maker” and “thought leader”.