Companies are on the war path against remote work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need to strike

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m for the corporates here. Workers have become entitled. Look at the pay, benefits, and severance packages of employees recently dumped by FANG companies. These workers were waayyy overpaid and sometimes doing nothing, and then they complained about being let go. What gives! Corporations are not welfare. What I hear from the non-RTO crowd is an acknowledgment that their situation is too good to be true but they want to milk it for as long as they can. So, they protest wildly, oftentimes wrapping themselves in the flag of community, home, and the environment. Underneath though, they know that their argument, and even their self, is a sham.

Surely you realize that 99% of corporate jobs are a sham, right?

You are delusional. If most jobs were a sham, the economy would produce nothing. The products and services you use everyday are the proof that there is something very wrong with you and your ilk.

I’m exaggerating with the 99%. I’d go with 50%.

Sorry but a large portion of OFFICE jobs are completely unnecessary. Read the book titled “Bullsh*t jobs”

Manufacturing and real in-person jobs like doctors, surgeons, nurses, police officers etc are actually necessary. Most of the people working for tech companies, large corporations could not show up to work ever again and you’d likely never notice.

If you feel that way, you should relinquish your job to someone who better appreciates a paycheck. Again, I find it ironic that someone who has a “bullsh*t” job would blame their employer for hiring them and asking just a bit of cooperation from them. To be clear, you want to have your cake and to eat it too: my job is a scam; now pay me well and let me do nothing from home.

I don’t think those jobs are BS at all but there is no need for them to be in-person.

There you go again. You want the company to pay you, but you want to set the terms of engagement. If you don’t like your company’s terms, go elsewhere.

A lot of people who do low-level professional/ staff jobs help on other projects while in the office. However, many WFH types want to draw strict “boundaries “ around what they will and won’t do and when they will and won’t work. That doesn’t fly in the office where you’re expected to be a teammate (within reason). WFH “boundaries” are really about doing less, that is, being less productive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cities threatening to get rid of tax breaks for companies if they don’t RTO, because apparently small businesses are suffering, downtowns are becoming ghost towns, CRE values are plummeting & public transportation is being crime-filled due to normies no longer taking it.

Honestly, I am sick and tired if the FT WFH evangelists acting like these are not valid concerns. They are. Acting as if they are not is making the RTO worse. If you’re unwilling to meet halfway with hybrid, they’ll just make everyone come in all the time. The war path is over. People go back now.

How about those of us who have large commute costs. And time. I can either work the two extra hours or commute with them.

No one forced you to live far from your job

Yeah I could’ve been a lifelong renter near my job instead.

Or you could find another job with a better commute. Choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to strike

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

And lower stock prices, lower standard of living, and poorer retirement. You’ll end up a French pensioner on the streets squabbling about 2 more years of a poor retirement, sitting on a couch, watching Netflix, eating chips, and getting morbidly obese.

[Anonymous]

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.

And lower stock prices, lower standard of living, and poorer retirement. You’ll end up a French pensioner on the streets squabbling about 2 more years of a poor retirement, sitting on a couch, watching Netflix, eating chips, and getting morbidly obese.

None of that in France.

[Anonymous]

A friend told me her company has told everyone, no more remote, and she understands because so many people are "goofing" off with their time. Management is tired of it and is begging for the five day work week in office again. The conversation with her went along the lines of well, people will just quite and go elsewhere, her answer, "the have so many resumes piling up in HR that the company is confident they will be fine." Don't know if that's true, the HR part, but I personally know three people who were laid off just this past week for economizing purposes. Little scary. I don't think WFH advocates are in control any longer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m for the corporates here. Workers have become entitled. Look at the pay, benefits, and severance packages of employees recently dumped by FANG companies. These workers were waayyy overpaid and sometimes doing nothing, and then they complained about being let go. What gives! Corporations are not welfare. What I hear from the non-RTO crowd is an acknowledgment that their situation is too good to be true but they want to milk it for as long as they can. So, they protest wildly, oftentimes wrapping themselves in the flag of community, home, and the environment. Underneath though, they know that their argument, and even their self, is a sham.

Surely you realize that 99% of corporate jobs are a sham, right?

You are delusional. If most jobs were a sham, the economy would produce nothing. The products and services you use everyday are the proof that there is something very wrong with you and your ilk.

I’m exaggerating with the 99%. I’d go with 50%.

Sorry but a large portion of OFFICE jobs are completely unnecessary. Read the book titled “Bullsh*t jobs”

Manufacturing and real in-person jobs like doctors, surgeons, nurses, police officers etc are actually necessary. Most of the people working for tech companies, large corporations could not show up to work ever again and you’d likely never notice.

If you feel that way, you should relinquish your job to someone who better appreciates a paycheck. Again, I find it ironic that someone who has a “bullsh*t” job would blame their employer for hiring them and asking just a bit of cooperation from them. To be clear, you want to have your cake and to eat it too: my job is a scam; now pay me well and let me do nothing from home.

I don’t think those jobs are BS at all but there is no need for them to be in-person.

There you go again. You want the company to pay you, but you want to set the terms of engagement. If you don’t like your company’s terms, go elsewhere.

A lot of people who do low-level professional/ staff jobs help on other projects while in the office. However, many WFH types want to draw strict “boundaries “ around what they will and won’t do and when they will and won’t work. That doesn’t fly in the office where you’re expected to be a teammate (within reason). WFH “boundaries” are really about doing less, that is, being less productive.

Actually it’s the opposite for sone. My spouse will work 19 hour days if working from home but if he has a two hour commute he is not working 10 hours plus a commute. Plus calls at all hours after hours. You either offer flexibility or not. Sone jobs are global and require flexibility.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cities threatening to get rid of tax breaks for companies if they don’t RTO, because apparently small businesses are suffering, downtowns are becoming ghost towns, CRE values are plummeting & public transportation is being crime-filled due to normies no longer taking it.

Honestly, I am sick and tired if the FT WFH evangelists acting like these are not valid concerns. They are. Acting as if they are not is making the RTO worse. If you’re unwilling to meet halfway with hybrid, they’ll just make everyone come in all the time. The war path is over. People go back now.

How about those of us who have large commute costs. And time. I can either work the two extra hours or commute with them.

No one forced you to live far from your job

Yeah I could’ve been a lifelong renter near my job instead.

Or you could find another job with a better commute. Choices.

Not for specific jobs. We’d have to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m for the corporates here. Workers have become entitled. Look at the pay, benefits, and severance packages of employees recently dumped by FANG companies. These workers were waayyy overpaid and sometimes doing nothing, and then they complained about being let go. What gives! Corporations are not welfare. What I hear from the non-RTO crowd is an acknowledgment that their situation is too good to be true but they want to milk it for as long as they can. So, they protest wildly, oftentimes wrapping themselves in the flag of community, home, and the environment. Underneath though, they know that their argument, and even their self, is a sham.

Surely you realize that 99% of corporate jobs are a sham, right?

You are delusional. If most jobs were a sham, the economy would produce nothing. The products and services you use everyday are the proof that there is something very wrong with you and your ilk.

I’m exaggerating with the 99%. I’d go with 50%.

Sorry but a large portion of OFFICE jobs are completely unnecessary. Read the book titled “Bullsh*t jobs”

Manufacturing and real in-person jobs like doctors, surgeons, nurses, police officers etc are actually necessary. Most of the people working for tech companies, large corporations could not show up to work ever again and you’d likely never notice.

If you feel that way, you should relinquish your job to someone who better appreciates a paycheck. Again, I find it ironic that someone who has a “bullsh*t” job would blame their employer for hiring them and asking just a bit of cooperation from them. To be clear, you want to have your cake and to eat it too: my job is a scam; now pay me well and let me do nothing from home.

I don’t think those jobs are BS at all but there is no need for them to be in-person.

There you go again. You want the company to pay you, but you want to set the terms of engagement. If you don’t like your company’s terms, go elsewhere.

A lot of people who do low-level professional/ staff jobs help on other projects while in the office. However, many WFH types want to draw strict “boundaries “ around what they will and won’t do and when they will and won’t work. That doesn’t fly in the office where you’re expected to be a teammate (within reason). WFH “boundaries” are really about doing less, that is, being less productive.

Actually it’s the opposite for sone. My spouse will work 19 hour days if working from home but if he has a two hour commute he is not working 10 hours plus a commute. Plus calls at all hours after hours. You either offer flexibility or not. Sone jobs are global and require flexibility.

10+ hour days

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cities threatening to get rid of tax breaks for companies if they don’t RTO, because apparently small businesses are suffering, downtowns are becoming ghost towns, CRE values are plummeting & public transportation is being crime-filled due to normies no longer taking it.

Honestly, I am sick and tired if the FT WFH evangelists acting like these are not valid concerns. They are. Acting as if they are not is making the RTO worse. If you’re unwilling to meet halfway with hybrid, they’ll just make everyone come in all the time. The war path is over. People go back now.

Not true. There are still companies and jobs that ate fully remote. They will be more desirable.

Yup. I'm a fed who goes into the office once a week. The new OMB memo has me throwing in an application for every remote job I'm remotely qualified for, just in case they order us back 3-5 days. I'm also starting to look for non-fed jobs closer to home for the first time in years. I'm not eager to leave, I am invested in the program I manage and had planned to stay in this job a couple more years and the government for the rest of my career, but the 2.5-3 hours of commuting a day is just a deal breaker.

Hope you leave. Agencies have been inundated with applications. Just look at all the DCUM threads wanting advice about the gravy train. In reality, you’re going nowhere because you have it so good. You know that. You’re just gaslighting management to see if they blink. It was your choice to live where you do. You were probably one of those during the pandemic that trolled your neighbors and friends about your new 6000 sq ft home in the suburbs. Well, the joke is now on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m for the corporates here. Workers have become entitled. Look at the pay, benefits, and severance packages of employees recently dumped by FANG companies. These workers were waayyy overpaid and sometimes doing nothing, and then they complained about being let go. What gives! Corporations are not welfare. What I hear from the non-RTO crowd is an acknowledgment that their situation is too good to be true but they want to milk it for as long as they can. So, they protest wildly, oftentimes wrapping themselves in the flag of community, home, and the environment. Underneath though, they know that their argument, and even their self, is a sham.

Surely you realize that 99% of corporate jobs are a sham, right?

You are delusional. If most jobs were a sham, the economy would produce nothing. The products and services you use everyday are the proof that there is something very wrong with you and your ilk.

I’m exaggerating with the 99%. I’d go with 50%.

Sorry but a large portion of OFFICE jobs are completely unnecessary. Read the book titled “Bullsh*t jobs”

Manufacturing and real in-person jobs like doctors, surgeons, nurses, police officers etc are actually necessary. Most of the people working for tech companies, large corporations could not show up to work ever again and you’d likely never notice.

If you feel that way, you should relinquish your job to someone who better appreciates a paycheck. Again, I find it ironic that someone who has a “bullsh*t” job would blame their employer for hiring them and asking just a bit of cooperation from them. To be clear, you want to have your cake and to eat it too: my job is a scam; now pay me well and let me do nothing from home.

I don’t think those jobs are BS at all but there is no need for them to be in-person.

There you go again. You want the company to pay you, but you want to set the terms of engagement. If you don’t like your company’s terms, go elsewhere.

A lot of people who do low-level professional/ staff jobs help on other projects while in the office. However, many WFH types want to draw strict “boundaries “ around what they will and won’t do and when they will and won’t work. That doesn’t fly in the office where you’re expected to be a teammate (within reason). WFH “boundaries” are really about doing less, that is, being less productive.

Actually it’s the opposite for sone. My spouse will work 19 hour days if working from home but if he has a two hour commute he is not working 10 hours plus a commute. Plus calls at all hours after hours. You either offer flexibility or not. Sone jobs are global and require flexibility.

Yes, well I did this when I worked in the office five days a week. I resisted getting a corporate cell phone forever because I knew what that meant. The reality is I have not worked a forty hour work week in ten plus years, the level of my employment, my responsibilities and such require me to put in hours in the evenings and weekends. That's why I get paid the BIG bucks. I chose this for future financial security in retirement. No regrets and not complaining. I do not know one single higher end executive who doesn't work outside of standard 9 -5 hours, not one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cities threatening to get rid of tax breaks for companies if they don’t RTO, because apparently small businesses are suffering, downtowns are becoming ghost towns, CRE values are plummeting & public transportation is being crime-filled due to normies no longer taking it.

Honestly, I am sick and tired if the FT WFH evangelists acting like these are not valid concerns. They are. Acting as if they are not is making the RTO worse. If you’re unwilling to meet halfway with hybrid, they’ll just make everyone come in all the time. The war path is over. People go back now.

How about those of us who have large commute costs. And time. I can either work the two extra hours or commute with them.

No one forced you to live far from your job

Yeah I could’ve been a lifelong renter near my job instead.

Or you could find another job with a better commute. Choices.

Not for specific jobs. We’d have to move.

Or find a new career, that's an idea. People do it all the time. You are not that special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cities threatening to get rid of tax breaks for companies if they don’t RTO, because apparently small businesses are suffering, downtowns are becoming ghost towns, CRE values are plummeting & public transportation is being crime-filled due to normies no longer taking it.

Honestly, I am sick and tired if the FT WFH evangelists acting like these are not valid concerns. They are. Acting as if they are not is making the RTO worse. If you’re unwilling to meet halfway with hybrid, they’ll just make everyone come in all the time. The war path is over. People go back now.

Not true. There are still companies and jobs that ate fully remote. They will be more desirable.

Yup. I'm a fed who goes into the office once a week. The new OMB memo has me throwing in an application for every remote job I'm remotely qualified for, just in case they order us back 3-5 days. I'm also starting to look for non-fed jobs closer to home for the first time in years. I'm not eager to leave, I am invested in the program I manage and had planned to stay in this job a couple more years and the government for the rest of my career, but the 2.5-3 hours of commuting a day is just a deal breaker.

Why wasn’t it before?

I’m guessing it was money, and if companies claw back wages for remote workers, people will suddenly be less thrilled with WAH.