Are Return-to-Office Mandates Killing Workers' Trust in Workplaces? (thehill.com) 80
The Hill published the thoughts of Gleb Tsipursky, Ph.D., who serves as the CEO of the future-of-work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts:
A recent EnhancV survey of 1,000 full-time U.S. workers subject to new or stricter return-to-office policies found that 72% suspect these mandates are really a voluntary attrition strategy — a strategy by their own employers to make them quit their jobs. A full 46% admit to the practice of coffee-badging. Thirty-six percent have applied for a new job while sitting at their current office desk. Thirty-six percent have started a side hustle since the mandate was announced, in anticipation of being let go or quitting. Those numbers do not prove that employees reject collaboration. They show that many employees no longer trust the official story...
The central mistake in many in-office mandates is the assumption that proximity automatically produces commitment. It does not. A worker who spends two hours commuting to sit on video calls with colleagues in other cities is not experiencing culture. That worker is experiencing theater. When executives describe the office as a cure-all, many employees experience lost time, higher costs and lower autonomy. The policy's defining feature becomes its credibility gap. Research keeps undercutting the belief that more office time automatically means better performance. A University of Pittsburgh analysis of S&P 500 firms found that return-to-office mandates reduced employee satisfaction without improving firm performance or firm value....
Baylor University's reporting on office mandates and brain drain found that firms with mandates faced greater turnover among women, senior employees, managers and high-skilled workers, while job vacancy duration increased and hiring rates declined. In other words, the people with the most options are often the first to leave. The employees who remain may not be the most committed — they may simply be the least mobile... Attendance can be mandated, but commitment cannot. When leaders confuse the two, they do not rebuild workplace culture. They create a room full of people planning their exit.
The central mistake in many in-office mandates is the assumption that proximity automatically produces commitment. It does not. A worker who spends two hours commuting to sit on video calls with colleagues in other cities is not experiencing culture. That worker is experiencing theater. When executives describe the office as a cure-all, many employees experience lost time, higher costs and lower autonomy. The policy's defining feature becomes its credibility gap. Research keeps undercutting the belief that more office time automatically means better performance. A University of Pittsburgh analysis of S&P 500 firms found that return-to-office mandates reduced employee satisfaction without improving firm performance or firm value....
Baylor University's reporting on office mandates and brain drain found that firms with mandates faced greater turnover among women, senior employees, managers and high-skilled workers, while job vacancy duration increased and hiring rates declined. In other words, the people with the most options are often the first to leave. The employees who remain may not be the most committed — they may simply be the least mobile... Attendance can be mandated, but commitment cannot. When leaders confuse the two, they do not rebuild workplace culture. They create a room full of people planning their exit.
Wow (Score:3)
They show that many employees no longer trust the official story.
Why did they ever trust the official story? Lying has been standard in SV for a long time [nickoneill.com]. Obviously longer, but I can't find older links. A lot CxOs lie for no reason, in a transparent way that kills morale. I'm starting to think they intentionally kill morale. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Im sure the reason ranges from flexing, to ego, to wanting to validate their concerns about employees productivity.
All of this is validated by stories of extreme oversight, narcissistic bosses, and bad excuses they come up with for anything they do that is suspect.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Leaders equating line-of-sight supervision with effectiveness found themselves without their primary management tool [forbes.com]
having well-trained, well-motivated managers leads to massive boosts in productivity from hybrid and remote working models. The data support this argument from the flip side, too. Among companies that reported struggles with remote work, this issue was concentrated in firms in which leaders fumbled the management and coordination of their remote teams. [lse.ac.uk]
Remote and hybrid workers are struggling with leadership gaps that were never addressed when companies shifted out of the office. Many management habits remain rooted in on-site visibility rather than clear expectations and outcomes. [natlawreview.com]
And most damning of all, The study concludes that narcissistic leaders oppose virtual work primarily because it threatens their access to power and status, rather than out of concern for organizational productivity. Shandell, Elliott, and Grant write that "leader narcissism is a critical but neglected source of resistance to remote work." [hrreporter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
, The study concludes that narcissistic leaders oppose virtual work primarily because it threatens their access to power and status, rather than out of concern for organizational productivity.
It's not narcissism, it's entirely rational: we are all working because of self interest, not because we care about the company.
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion, that's still drastically different than working because it gives me a captive audience of people highly motivated to kiss ass. Loyalty or not, I am invested in my work (as opposed to my job) - Doing it reasonably well is directly conducive to the company remaining solvent and me continuing to draw a salary.
Am I merely deluding myself by thinking doing the job well because i
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you overall - I work because I need income to live, not because I give the least damn about my employer.
Of course we need income to live, but I don't think it's that black-or-white. At least some of us also factor in wanting to work in an environment where we feel like we're making a difference (e.g. non-profits, educational institutions), which typically means a relatively lower salary than is the industry norm.
Re: (Score:2)
the Bill Lundbergs of the world have realized to their horror they're utterly irrelevant to my productivity.
What I mean is, they are incentivized to reduce productivity. They are rewarded for it. If they are merely irrelevant to productivity, then they are not likely to be promoted, or have as good a position if they change companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not narcicism so much as short-sighted self interest. Either way, it would be in the company's interest (and the shareholders) to give THEM the heave-ho and leave the workers remote. The workaround for their ineffectiveness costs millions a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... I lost trust in my first full time employer decades ago when they tried to outsource my work to cheap Indian labor.
I then lost trust in my second full time employer when they tried to outsource my work to cheap Costa Rican labor.
For my third and fourth full time employers, I lost trust in them because they were giving me annual 2 1/2% "raises" that didn't even cover inflation while the companies were making record profits. I'm pretty sure they would have loved to outsource my job overseas as well, b
Re: (Score:2)
I had to take an organizational behaviour course as part of my CS degree in the 90s. "Organizational behaviour" is basically how to get your employees to work harder without actually paying them more. This kind of lying was standard practice back then too, and certainly not just in some little part of California.
Re: Pretty simple (Score:2)
iâ(TM)m not tracking why you think wfh is somehow necessary or even just better fir the enterprise in the current environment. it is it just resentment among coworkers?
Re: Pretty simple (Score:3)
Re: Pretty simple (Score:2)
So your point is nor that WfH is in any way inferior for the company, but that anyone who believed it would become the norm was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Put another way, employers who gave everyone an effective raise due to exigent circumstances and suffered no harm as a result are now mystified as to why their employees are reluctant to accept an effective pay cut now for no apparent benefit. Given the latter part, they rightly suspect some sort of malfeasance somewhere in management.
Re: (Score:2)
Workers want or even need a cost of living adjustment. Employers do not want to and may not be able to afford to increase payroll. For that reason, the COL increases are often several years in arrears as it is. WFH gives the employees an effective raise by eliminating their commute costs and an opportunity to save even more by living somewhere with a lower COL.
As an additional incentive, the employer saves on office space.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get why you think there is any "conundrum". WFH, or better, WFE = from elsewhere was a trend way before COVID, I went to 90-95% WFE by 2012. Sure there are some tasks that are better solved on-site, but they are few, and some planning wrt visits does it.
2012 was the year I just went for summer from the same city as the office was in to some village 800km away and did not even told anyone, it was already that seamless and expected.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't get why you think there is any "conundrum". WFH, or better, WFE = from elsewhere was a trend way before COVID, I went to 90-95% WFE by 2012. Sure there are some tasks that are better solved on-site, but they are few, and some planning wrt visits does it.
2012 was the year I just went for summer from the same city as the office was in to some village 800km away and did not even told anyone, it was already that seamless and expected.
I don't get why you think that your personal situation is somehow applicable to everyone. I mean good for you. Your job supports almost total WFAand yes there are jobs like that.
If I were to claim mine was the standard, I would say that since I work 50 Percent from home, and 50 percent onsite, that is how everyone should work. There have been times I performed the non-site work in hotels while on vacation, so yeah, it's WFA. But this is not my point. My point is that during Covid times, there was a surge
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, IT is the low-hanging fruit here; but we now know virtually all white collar work can effectively be done remotely; and going further, unless your job specifically requires direct interaction with the product or customers, there's little legitimate reason to burn an extra 20% of our waking lives commuting. And that just to hang out in a noisy and disruptive environment full of people more interested in being
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, IT is the low-hanging fruit here; but we now know virtually all white collar work can effectively be done remotely; and going further, unless your job specifically requires direct interaction with the product or customers, there's little legitimate reason to burn an extra 20% of our waking lives commuting. And that just to hang out in a noisy and disruptive environment full of people more interested in being seen than in doing the job.
So virtually all white collar work - what is your metric, I call virtually all as 99.999 percent, as in no one needs to go to a workplace ever at all. Sorry, that's an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof.
You present as an introvert, or possibly a schizoid ( A person who does not want to be around others at all, ever) Does not mean a bad thing, schizoids are generally satisfied alone, and many have incredible skillsets, largely due to lack of interruption
The noteworthy exception is, unsurprisingly, management itself. WFH has effectively demonstrated the problem was never us worthless lazy doers
Well, I dunno, because you are most d
Re: (Score:2)
When I say "virtually all white collar wo
Re: (Score:2)
I have also been WFH for years before covid. I don't believe my circumstances are the same as everybody's, but I do know I am far from the only person whose duties almost exclusively involve working with people and things that are in another region anyway.
Re:Pretty simple (Score:4, Informative)
Those that do not earn an income off of physical labor, as you pointed out, waste personal time on daily travel that adds nothing of significance to the job. Is work being completed? Is there a concern with performance? Then address them, dont be scared to talk with the employee.
But they are scared, otherwise they wouldnt lie, they wouldnt worry about talking with the employee, and they wouldnt try some convoluted excuse.
There is nothing new here, except that the general public realized that the unnecessary bits were imposed upon them by Executives who are in charge of buildings they have a stake in or own, and freaked out when companies were re-evaluating the need for the physical presence.
The really good analysis was that WFH doesnt take away from the business. That was stated multiple times, and still is a valid point.
Re: (Score:2)
Im going to let you know that it was already allowed for introverts with high production to work from home. Before COVID WFH was allowed for quite a few people, including executives.
I find it fascinating they my post pisses off so many people.
Yeah, there have always been careers that are not working in an office. This isn't about those. They aren't being asked to return to office. I'm speaking from the point of what happened in 2020 for a few years. If the job was performed onsite once, the employer will likely want that again.
This is utterly simple. If you have a personal requirement of never stepping in an office, that is just a personal requirement. Not one thing wrong with tha
Re: (Score:1)
If companies had to pay for your commuting time instead of just stealing it from you, they'd be way more interested in having as many employees as possible work from elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
If companies had to pay for your commuting time instead of just stealing it from you, they'd be way more interested in having as many employees as possible work from elsewhere.
I live 15 minutes from work - Are y'all forced to live 40 miles away from the workplace?
Re: (Score:2)
If companies had to pay for your commuting time instead of just stealing it from you, they'd be way more interested in having as many employees as possible work from elsewhere.
I live 15 minutes from work - Are y'all forced to live 40 miles away from the workplace?
No, you could always either change jobs or sell your house and take a huge property tax hit every year for the rest of your life.
Re: (Score:2)
If companies had to pay for your commuting time instead of just stealing it from you, they'd be way more interested in having as many employees as possible work from elsewhere.
I live 15 minutes from work - Are y'all forced to live 40 miles away from the workplace?
No, you could always either change jobs or sell your house and take a huge property tax hit every year for the rest of your life.
Those are tradeoffs. I could move from my small city, and out to some of the poor areas near here. Yes, I'd pay less taxes, and probably have a much cheaper house, I'd also have a 40 minute commute, have to drive almost that far for groceries and shopping, and a long ambulance ride because of the remoteness.
I choose to live 15 minutes from work, and it is not my employers responsibility. I choose to work onsite half the time, home the other half.
And while you might consider your demands to be somehow
Re: Pretty simple (Score:2)
> I find it fascinating they my post pisses off so many people.
I find it fascinating that you interpret disagreement as pissed off.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While some companies allowed employees more ability to work remote due to Covid, some companies had those policies before Covid as they did not have enough office space for their employees. Now those companies are mandating workers make long commutes just to fight for desks.
Which companies? Regardless, while I'm triggering everyone, I might as well restate, if you are opposed to going to an office and consider it a non-starter, it's time to look for a job that will give you the happiness you deserve
I'm just stating some facts that should be pretty obvious. https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/v... [bls.gov]
I'm also stating why some people don't want to return to onsite, including FTA things like a 2 hour commute.
What is sort of funny is that while your post isn't angry, some are pretty
Re: (Score:1)
Posting AC, for obvious reasons.
Mine. Prior to COVID, there were those who were WFH and those who were in office. My company went full WFH for approximately two years. When the RTO mandate came, it was hybrid; 3 days onsite, 2 days WFH, (interestingly, no specific WFA allowance.)
On return, what we found was that the office spaces had been "renovated" - instead of assigned cubicles, it was now rows of open desk spaces with no assigned seating, not enough seating for everyone and - to me, most
Re: (Score:2)
Disney. Even before COVID, a lot of folks did WFH at least on Fridays.
Prior to COVID, office space was tight. They did a bunch of "let's turn the conference rooms into cubes" move to try to make up for it. Former offices for executives became 2-4 person rooms. But even then, the chance that the majority of the attendees for any given meeting were in the same building was nearly zero. In FL there were at least a dozen different building each miles from the other. Add in CA and WA and most of your meeti
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not it was intended to drive attrition, I don't know. I did leave during that time, found a place that was still WFH, and WFH to this day. Ironically, the new company paid better too despite studies showing people will take lower pay for WFH.
That's been my point through this whole thing. If working in an office is a deal breaker, find a different place to work.
I don't care if you want to WFH, and never work in an office again. This is your life and your choice to make. I only note that not every job is applicable to WFH only.
That I gave some reasons that enraged some people is odd, at least to me.
What is your upgrade path working at home? Another thing I do that Slashdotters hate is networking. That's pretty difficult to do, and Networ
Re: (Score:3)
> If people have to be onsite while some programmer for the same company lives in some really low cost area
Absolutely no difference to one lucky on-site employee not paying rent or mortgage while others do.
> The conditions that made WFH the best path forward have changed.
Yeah, a C-level dick measuring contest appeared wherein company culture strength was measured by office attendance. Our CEO bragged about having better attendance than some friend of his.
Then they made attendance an inter-office compe
Re: (Score:2)
This utter hatred of going to an office has its roots in Covid.
Even in the article, it notes a 2 hour commute. Before the WFH situation grew people lived far away from their workplaces. During Covid times, many chose to look for cheap living expenses, and often lived much further away than 2 hours.
Now this was nice, rather like having our cake and eating it too. But a sober assessment would tell a person that it was not going to be permanent.
Why isn't it permanent?
In many ways, it benefits the companies as much as the employees. Two companies I've worked for have been able to reduce their real estate footprint. Changing mandatory in-person weekend work to offsite saved thousands of dollars per day.
WFH employees who are sick are - by definition - already staying home. Myself and others have been able to choose to work while feeling iffy, rather than costing the company an entire day of productivity. Whole offices getting sick aren't an issue wit
Re: (Score:2)
This utter hatred of going to an office has its roots in Covid.
Even in the article, it notes a 2 hour commute. Before the WFH situation grew people lived far away from their workplaces. During Covid times, many chose to look for cheap living expenses, and often lived much further away than 2 hours.
Now this was nice, rather like having our cake and eating it too. But a sober assessment would tell a person that it was not going to be permanent.
Why isn't it permanent?
Because the conditions that caused it went away. Because only a subset of job positions can be WFH only. Because those employees who have to go onsite might have a good reason to expect to be paid more. While I do 50/50 WFH - Onsite, if there was a person working only offsite and paid as much as me, I'd demand extra compensation for wearing suits, and work travel. They'd have to deal with it.
In many ways, it benefits the companies as much as the employees. Two companies I've worked for have been able to reduce their real estate footprint. Changing mandatory in-person weekend work to offsite saved thousands of dollars per day.
I see - you appear to be saying that I claim that onsite work is a panacea for companies, I am not. But I will say sp
Re: (Score:2)
Why isn't it permanent?
Because the conditions that caused it went away. Because only a subset of job positions can be WFH only.
For the overwhelming majority of roles in tech, the pandemic proved not only that those workers could be WFH, but that the company's efficiency on average went up when doing so. Yes, some workers' efficiency went down, usually because of having kids who were also at home, and struggling to manage that, but once that condition went away, there was even less reason why those workers needed to be in the office. This leaves only the people for whom physically commuting to the office was necessary to avoid dis
Re: (Score:2)
If your skills are in demand, being in the office demands a premium. I'd expect to be paid for the time commuting, and the cost of commuting, and some on top for the hassle. I don't really want to work more than 37.5 hours a week, so that costs a lot extra.
Re: Pretty simple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your skills are in demand, being in the office demands a premium.
I agree. WFH only people probably think they should be paid the same.
I have a rather unique skillset. But application of that skillset requires onsite. I'm paid accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
has its roots in Covid.
It exasperated it, but the hatred of going into the office has been a thing for far, far longer. Ever watch Office Space? (Interestingly, the number of software engineers who actually say Office Space, in spite of being a comedy, accurately reflects the hell they feel trapped in surprised me.)
Re: (Score:2)
has its roots in Covid.
It exasperated it, but the hatred of going into the office has been a thing for far, far longer. Ever watch Office Space? (Interestingly, the number of software engineers who actually say Office Space, in spite of being a comedy, accurately reflects the hell they feel trapped in surprised me.)
Yeah - watched it, funny as all hell, and enjoyed it. It is truly sad that people feel compelled to hate what they do for a living. I've always gravitated to work I enjoy, but apparently enjoying work is anomalous, I've even been denigrated fort that in here. Judge movies are possibly prophetic and a mirror held up exposing our true nature. Do you surmise that Idiocracy is the state of humanity as well? 8^)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason to bring jobs back to the office, that ever left the office.
I'm lucky to have worked for two companies that saw the logic in this, and ended their real estate contracts after realizing the only job that needed to be in the offices were the front desk people(they got giant severance for their trouble, don't
Re: (Score:2)
You contradict yourself. Covid WFH showed us, explicitly, most jobs can be done in your underwear at home. The few jobs that can't? Those did not transition to WFH in the first place.
So tell us, why would employers want people coming back to work, when they can pay them less, eliminate the workplace, and reap the rewards of not having a them at work. I hear weird stuff about how this is some sort of C-Suite "dick waving" when fine - It dopeasn't cost any where near as much when your business can run well with only 10 people in it. Why would they want to be around you?
Eschew solipsism, where you believe everyone has your job. Might as well avoid the Slashdot echo effect as well, where
The Hatred of an Office - A History Lesson. (Score:4, Informative)
This utter hatred of going to an office has its roots in Covid.
The Remote Desktop Protocol and 128+ bits of entropy protecting a VPN tunnel, has existed for 20+ years now.
The same Remote Desktop Protocol that enables grown-ass professionals to not waste upwards of a fucking fiscal quarter** every calendar year sitting behind a steering wheel commuting to a job that could be done remotely.
The utter hatred of going into an office, has existed for a LOT longer than COVID-era investors refusing to degrade the 10x premium on dirt invested into your 401k and pension funds as "business" grade dirt, and a LOT longer than No Moron Hired Behind DEI laws and practices that also destroy remote work policies because they cannot be trusted to actually work remotely.
Re: (Score:2)
** - An hour-long commute, equates to 2+ hours a day sitting in traffic behind a steering wheel, wasted. 10+ hours every workweek, wasted. 40+ hours a month, wasted. 480+ hours a year, wasted. A fucking fiscal quarter of your salaried employees time, wasted sitting behind a steering wheel. You're damn right it adds up. CEOs should fucking learn the true value of Trusted Staff and RDP.
Re: (Score:2)
grown-ass professionals to not waste upwards of a fucking fiscal quarter**
You mad bro?
Perhaps I come from a different group, one who has no issue being around other humans, and does not feel the need to get that angry if someone doesn't agree with them.
I'm not angry - I'm not even disappointed.
Re:Pretty simple (Score:4, Interesting)
Every employer I've had in my 30yr professional career did not care if its programmers came into the office. This included fortune 500 multinationals, mid size regional companies, and small LLCs. WFH has only become an issue since it became a political rallying cry in the culture war.
Re: (Score:2)
This utter hatred of going to an office has its roots in Covid.
Even in the article, it notes a 2 hour commute. Before the WFH situation grew people lived far away from their workplaces. During Covid times, many chose to look for cheap living expenses, and often lived much further away than 2 hours.
This might be true for some, but it's rather simplistic.
We've lived in the same house for 30+ years. My commute, both pre- and post-Covid, often runs 1.5 hours. When Covid hit I was getting ready to file my retirement paperwork because I thought I was tired of working.
What Covid actually taught me was that I still enjoy my job, quite a bit. What I HATE is the commute.
Post-Covid, I've been able to still work from home three days a week. Those two commute days are still wearing, and I probably am going to ret
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, WHF was a win-win for employers too. The employees got an effective raise by lowering their cost of living and a reduction in unproductive daily aggravation and wasted time. The employer didn't have to actually pay them any extra to make that happen and could even save on expensive office space. It just wasn't a win for the managers who could no longer hide how bad they were at their jobs.
Retired, my jobs required being at work ! (Score:2)
Potemkin (Score:2)
> A worker who spends two hours commuting to sit on video calls with colleagues in other cities is not experiencing culture. That worker is experiencing theater.
It's Potemkin all the way up.
In my case attrition indeed was the goal. We all knew it. 15% of my team left, including both Linux devs. Apart from one person, all my peers were in other offices. RTO was just being on videocall in a room far from home.
Fortunately labour law was on our side, and they couldn't force me as remote work was written in t
ffs (Score:2, Interesting)
Hard yes. We'd spent the better part of a decade trending towards WFH, open concept office, etc etc... now, there's not even enough seats. If we hit 100% compliance about a third of us would be sat on the floor.
The dumb sluts are still pushing for it.
I get the sentiment but... (Score:2)
I get the sentiment, but this article has very clearly been written by AI
"coffee badging" ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to enroll for the next semester? That's not how you enroll.
Filed under Duh... (Score:2)
"the people with the most options are often the first to leave."
Obviously.
My commute was 35 minutes each way, two hours would have been a real show stopper. Working remotely wasn't really an option at a chemical plant.
3 days a week at my place... but... (Score:2)
Whilst it is officially 3 days per week at my place there is clearly some shadow policy that HR aren't sharing. Firstly there is never a definitive answer about whether leave (regular, bank holiday or medical) counts. There are people signed off sick after surgery who get grief from HR for not attending the office FFS. And there is some peculiar 12 and 26 week average attendance that gets reported even though the policy that we can see doesn't mention those timescales at all.
But it gets worse. It's not jus
Re: (Score:2)
Workers simply do not want to satisfy the job requirements, which includes set hours and physical presence. I also want to get paid without showing up or producing, but that's not the job.
TEr... not wanting to go to an office isn't "not producing," work from home is still working. You're combining two statements (one that is Captain Obvious-ing that people are taking issue with some of the office requirements, and then misconstruing them (while also, I'd argue, missing that the requirements ARE the point of contention and some can be out of date depending on the job).
Re: (Score:2)
These people aren't able to think with nuance. They're disposed to parrot the corporate line. They're not capable of considering anyone but themselves, their situation, and whatever sad sack they worked with that one time - and painting everyone with that narrow brush.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll have you know I waste just as much time in the office as I did while working from home.
Re: (Score:2)
Cuz you're a true professional. One that will remain employed and employable.
The bitch-ass whiners, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
where AI tangent? (Score:2)
I find it significant in the RTO debate of late, that I have not yet heard something along the lines of "Return to office or we'll give your job to AI!" (Perhaps with the argument added that any sufficiently digital artifact-based job that can be done remotely, can also be done by LLM.)
Perhaps this says more about the current state of AI than it does about this article's topic. Or perhaps not. Thoughts?
AI has not (yet) delivered sufficiently. (Score:2)
If/when it does there will be mass layoffs because the ideal business has no human employees.
The purpose of AI is to replace humans by facilitating legal constructive dismissal. Businesses are willing to invest enormous sums to be rid of workers.
Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
Return to office was about commercial real estate property values so that a couple of billionaires who are heavily invested in it didn't lose their investments. Every single credible study has shown that work from home improves productivity and is universally beneficial because it gets people off the roads so if you are somebody who genuinely has to go into the office you have less traffic and cleaner air.
Nobody is going to care whether employees are happy or not anymore. Not broadly. Automation has been devouring jobs since the late 70s and by all accounts the pace is going to accelerate. So employers don't need to be nice to you anymore.
I wish UK employees would push-back like USA (Score:3)
Quite sad that in the UK, the company and HR have won with forced return-to-office mandates, and there's been very little or no push-back by staff.
It's almost impossible to come across any job which is fully remote in UK now, unless it's a job from USA or a European company.
My employer... (Score:2)
...does not need this to kill workers trust. Years of bad management, employee control and monitoring, and careers stopped for unknown reasons did this since a long time. We have a record resignation amount among professionals and young employees, and in a few months a new early retirement plan starts: I hope to be in the lucky ones to get this opportunity.
I love this stupid world (Score:2)
an article advocating for better working conditions that you can hear Claude's cadence in, truly a masterpiece
Nope. (Score:2)
Most folks who WFH enjoy the perks and don't want it to end. No commuting. Naps. Playing with the dog. Basically doing nothing other than scheduled meetings.
Then they go to the office and pretend to work for a day
They know what game they are playing. Play the game.