Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So I worked for Bloomberg LP. They monitored everything you did — badge in and out, logged keystrokes on the terminal, etc etc etc.
They provided free food/snacks to keep you chained to your desk. That was the model.
Mike is a smart guy but the irony is most of his employees were journalists and they couldn’t really do their jobs from their desks.
Most of his employees are not journalists
i doubt you worked at Bloomberg if you think the majority of employees are Tom Keene or Javier blas
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The article conflates numerous issues.
One is that the government is paying for empty office space. 100% agree with that complaint. Consolidate.
Another is that the lack of employees commuting downtown harms local businesses. While that is true, it is a nearly zero sum game where somewhere else is benefiting from WFH.
The final big complaint seems to be that there is no oversight of federal employees and they could be slacking at home. The problem with this argument is that all jobs should have some sort of criteria/deliverable/etc that defines how the employee is doing, regardless of where they are sitting. Bloomberg just assumes that the workforce is less efficient working from home, but that hasn’t been proven at all.
If you read DCUM posts, you know there’s a problem. If you know people who work at agencies, you know there is a problem. If you try to get service at some government offices, you know there’s a problem. There is a problem.
Anonymous wrote:The article conflates numerous issues.
One is that the government is paying for empty office space. 100% agree with that complaint. Consolidate.
Another is that the lack of employees commuting downtown harms local businesses. While that is true, it is a nearly zero sum game where somewhere else is benefiting from WFH.
The final big complaint seems to be that there is no oversight of federal employees and they could be slacking at home. The problem with this argument is that all jobs should have some sort of criteria/deliverable/etc that defines how the employee is doing, regardless of where they are sitting. Bloomberg just assumes that the workforce is less efficient working from home, but that hasn’t been proven at all.
Anonymous wrote:So I worked for Bloomberg LP. They monitored everything you did — badge in and out, logged keystrokes on the terminal, etc etc etc.
They provided free food/snacks to keep you chained to your desk. That was the model.
Mike is a smart guy but the irony is most of his employees were journalists and they couldn’t really do their jobs from their desks.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The article conflates numerous issues.
One is that the government is paying for empty office space. 100% agree with that complaint. Consolidate.
Another is that the lack of employees commuting downtown harms local businesses. While that is true, it is a nearly zero sum game where somewhere else is benefiting from WFH.
The final big complaint seems to be that there is no oversight of federal employees and they could be slacking at home. The problem with this argument is that all jobs should have some sort of criteria/deliverable/etc that defines how the employee is doing, regardless of where they are sitting. Bloomberg just assumes that the workforce is less efficient working from home, but that hasn’t been proven at all.
If you read DCUM posts, you know there’s a problem. If you know people who work at agencies, you know there is a problem. If you try to get service at some government offices, you know there’s a problem. There is a problem.
This isn’t a coherent argument - it’s just repeating a phrase.
I work at a fed agency and there were slackers before and there are now. Location of work doesn’t matter.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The article conflates numerous issues.
One is that the government is paying for empty office space. 100% agree with that complaint. Consolidate.
Another is that the lack of employees commuting downtown harms local businesses. While that is true, it is a nearly zero sum game where somewhere else is benefiting from WFH.
The final big complaint seems to be that there is no oversight of federal employees and they could be slacking at home. The problem with this argument is that all jobs should have some sort of criteria/deliverable/etc that defines how the employee is doing, regardless of where they are sitting. Bloomberg just assumes that the workforce is less efficient working from home, but that hasn’t been proven at all.
If you read DCUM posts, you know there’s a problem. If you know people who work at agencies, you know there is a problem. If you try to get service at some government offices, you know there’s a problem. There is a problem.
Anonymous wrote:The article conflates numerous issues.
One is that the government is paying for empty office space. 100% agree with that complaint. Consolidate.
Another is that the lack of employees commuting downtown harms local businesses. While that is true, it is a nearly zero sum game where somewhere else is benefiting from WFH.
The final big complaint seems to be that there is no oversight of federal employees and they could be slacking at home. The problem with this argument is that all jobs should have some sort of criteria/deliverable/etc that defines how the employee is doing, regardless of where they are sitting. Bloomberg just assumes that the workforce is less efficient working from home, but that hasn’t been proven at all.
Anonymous wrote:Who cares what he thinks?