WaPo opinion piece from a CEO who wants people back in the office

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming Washingtonian is too small to have a legal division or employment lawyer on retainer. Or a board of directors.

Because they would've told this "CEO" to never, ever, ever publicly publish such an op-ed. Or even send this write-up internally to staff.

What an idiot "executive"

But they have to have at least a GC, don’t you think?

[Anonymous]

No GC on staff per their website. I'm sure its cheaper to have a firm on retainer.

She felt safe to publish her nonsense since it's a small family company given to her by daddy.

https://www.washingtonian.com/contact/

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Washingtonian staff should probably vote on joining a union ASAP.

[Anonymous]

This takes some huevos!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The writers at Washingtonian are participating in a social media blackout in response to this op-ed. They’ve all posted on Twitter,
“As members of the Washingtonian editorial staff, we want our CEO to understand the risks of not valuing our labor. We are dismayed by Cathy Merrill’s public threat to our livelihoods. We will not be publishing today.”

Ha. Wow!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No GC on staff per their website. I'm sure its cheaper to have a firm on retainer.

She felt safe to publish her nonsense since it's a small family company given to her by daddy.

https://www.washingtonian.com/contact/

So many levels of cringe!

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No GC on staff per their website. I'm sure its cheaper to have a firm on retainer.

She felt safe to publish her nonsense since it's a small family company given to her by daddy.

https://www.washingtonian.com/contact/

So many levels of cringe!

This is why I'm A-OK with heavy inheritance taxes for the wealthy. Their progeny just don't have that fire in their belly or the street smarts to be savvy leaders.

[Anonymous]

Sh*t is going down

Merrill says she didn't make the title of the op-ed, so that's why the first one was changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's perfectly reasonable for an employee to say "I want". We are not slaves to any corporation or CEO.

If a company does not want to continue offering remote positions, employees who WANT to work from home will find other employment. So expect turn over of good employees who can and do perform well virtually if your company DEMANDS in office presence.

+1 the days of loyalty to one employer (and the employer's loyalty back to the worker) are long gone. If I don't like my working conditions, I can find other employment. And, believe me, I can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look all of you super workers from home. Sure, you are doing it great and it might be sustainable for you.
But, it is unlikely sustainable for the majority and even if it was, people in charge want you to go into office.
You have an option, quit or show up at work in person. At the office.
Your whining here shows that you are not a team player and hence you might be let go. Life is hard and not catered to what you want.
Unfortuanly many of this younger generation didn't get the memo about, suck it up!
All this whining here proves it.
You still think if you whine enough, mom/boss will let you have 1K prom dress.
Well, think again.
Your mom and your boss might be sick of your whining and trying to get your way.
Even if you are that productive from home!

Why do I get the feeling this was written from the back room of a dry cleaner in Annandale?

Because you are that stupid?
You only have one vision of people who might disagree with you? And you are not that smart as your only answer is to "insult" the poster? A sign of a not smart person is to lash out.
You are lashing out bcs you know I am right. That hurts and you don't really have a valid counterargument so you resort to alleged insults.
A person working at a dry cleaner, and in the back room, knows hard work. I admire that person so much more than you whining here.
That person knows how to work long hours and they show up every single day! The fact that you insulted and think poorly of that person is a reflection on you. A truly bad reflection on you, that you are so clueless to broadcast in public!
In fact, you have given me a compliment comparing me to such a hard working person.
Thank you.

Why are you so bothered that many people are capable of successfully working from home? Is it because your own job (or personality) doesn’t lend itself to working from home, so you are incapable of believe if that other jobs or personalities can do it well?

I am perfectly fine working from home, being in academia. The simple fact is that many people do not work great from home, imo. Why do I say that? Bcs people work terrible from office or work! Many, many millions don't show up, show up late, don't do the work. These are simple things that most people my age know. We have worked with people that are self driven, and those are far and few. Majority can barely do work when they show up.
I am bothered by pps here who think that bcs they are good at working from home, they are entitled to work from home.
For many, with understanding bosses and work environment that is a great option.
Yet, that is not how work force functions. If a boss has 10 people and 2 work great from home. and 8 barely do anything, that boss/company is unlikely to allow two of you to work from home. Their priority is overall productivity.
My issue is with people saying "I want." That is so tiresome and immature. What YOU want is rarely what you get in real life.
In pampered UMC, maybe.

it's a negotiable perk like any other. If some employers offer it and some don't I'd expect them to see better candidates. Those companies that force employees back better hope their competitors follow suit or they will start losing their best workers

[Anonymous]

Wow, good work staff!

Think the pro-telework folks should actually thank this "CEO"--she has done a great job undercutting and making ridiculous her side of the argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sh*t is going down

Merrill says she didn't make the title of the op-ed, so that's why the first one was changed.

Editors have final say over the titles of articles, not the authors.

What happened is that the WaPo Op-Ed editor created the first title. Then Merrill -being part of an "old money" white DC family - pulled strings and complained to Fred Hiatt that it's too threatening. Even though she directly threatens her employees in her article! They then swapped out with a new title, which clearly was meant to bury the lede.

The damage is already done from a legal perspective. That article was a dumpster fire of liability. I'm sure her attorneys will be getting paid good money to work all weekend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sh*t is going down

Merrill says she didn't make the title of the op-ed, so that's why the first one was changed.

Editors have final say over the titles of articles, not the authors.

What happened is that the WaPo Op-Ed editor created the first title. Then Merrill -being part of an "old money" white DC family - pulled strings and complained to Fred Hiatt that it's too threatening. Even though she directly threatens her employees in her article! They then swapped out with a new title, which clearly was meant to bury the lede.

The damage is already done from a legal perspective. That article was a dumpster fire of liability. I'm sure her attorneys will be getting paid good money to work all weekend.

I wouldn’t be shocked if DOL takes a hard look at their classification of employees / contractors, since this CEO just said, in writing, to the world, that she can change your employee status if you want to work from home.

How truly stupid is this woman?