this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
864 points (97.0% liked)
Work Reform
10003 readers
30 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As an employee at a company that has asked people to come back 3 days a week, and forced those that couldn't to "voluntarily resign", I very much doubt this will happen at large companies.
Sure, many companies will shift towards hybrid models, taking smaller office spaces where needed, and letting people work remotely when they want...but RTO became a culture war of sorts rather than a data-driven benefit. To switch back after being so anti-worker would be admitting fault, which CEO's rarely do.
Even if remote was the future, there are instances where I don't see it working:
If remote work is the future, what becomes of migration? Controlled migration is a huge boost for many cities that want the best and brightest to move there. Without a need for employees to move, either migration worldwide drops, or cities/countries find another way to bring people in.
Big companies have a huge number of applications, and even if the likes of Google and Amazon say "fuck you, 5 days a week in office" you'll find hundreds of people that'll happily work there and be treated like shit. It's not just tech either - finance, law, insurance, lots of industries that have tried to bring people back, and who have no shortage of people that'll take jobs there.
I love working remotely, but I do appreciate that there needs to be a balance. The smartest thing to do would be to have smaller, shared offices for people that want a desk, and to set up "virtual locations" for tax/salary reasons for people that want to be remote. That way, people get the best of both worlds.
Oh no cities might have to focus on residents more than business to grow. How terrible.
Yeah who gives a fuck about "migration to the cities" like the cities need more crowding?
Personally I would never want to pay the absurd cost of housing in a large city, and I don't care what jobs are there.
In my experience, literally every fucking major city in Europe, and probably around the world. Back when I used to work in VC, we'd help companies seek grants from cities that would give startups money just to have their HQ in their city. At a certain size, they were paying out or giving benefits just to have an office there.
It's not rocket science. Bring smart people into a city, crime goes down, people settle and start families, schools do well, they get/make good jobs and feed the local economy, etc. Just because you personally don't want to live in a big city doesn't mean that others don't...
This IS about residents. Diversity in population is a great thing for many countries, and larger cities in particular. Currently, most cities bring people in on work visas, which they won't be able to do under current visa laws if jobs are remote. This makes countries less diverse, and means less freedom of movement for people across the world. How would someone from the US move to Berlin if roles there are remote? Long-term, what happens to a society when all immigrants are second or third generation? Likely more right-wing abuse and more people kicking off over small amounts of migration for legal/safety reasons.
What you mean like affordable housing??
Walkability, excellent public transit...
Improving walkability or public transit won't matter if people can't afford to live there.
My last job was remote for a fortune 100 company. Large companies are 100% on board with this because it is efficient. It's only executive discretion arguing against flexible work.
Efficiency always wins in the end.
I can name a Fortune 100 bank, run by a total asshole, that does not and has never believed in remote work. Efficiency is not a factor there.
I can name a fortune 100 bank that isn't run by total asshole that does.
Efficiency wins in the end.
Feel free to name the company. In my experience, no tech companies are, nor are many of the major companies hiring software engineers (Bloomberg, JPMC, Amex, Salesforce, GS, and Capital One) are all being shitty when it comes to RTO.
Fidelity