In office communication is much more efficient. It is easier to understand (and pay attention to) people in the same room as you than it is to understand people on a call (especially since most people don't have a great microphone and Internet and LAN quality can vary). Some employers have adopted a policy of grouping meetings to designated meeting days and encouraging employees to come in on those.
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
410 points (96.6% liked)
Asklemmy
44276 readers
704 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
These are mostly excuses.
- If your employee isn't paying attn during meetings and not performing well due to that, that's a performance issue. Not a location issue.
- If they're not paying attn and are still performing well, maybe the meeting has no value.
- Companies should provide the necessary equipment to do the job. That includes an adequate headset, camera, etc... Not providing a $50 headset is not a reason to enforce a commute.
I've had a remote managers and remote teams for almost a decade now. When I had an office to go to I was often less productive due to all the distractions. Being in a physical location makes it too easy for people to try and jump the queue and just walk over to my desk.
While I miss (and I very much do miss) the socializing aspect of a shared workspace it didn't make me more productive.
My current job, which is completely remote, with a geographically spread out team, takes steps to mitigate the separation. Most work related convos take place in an open text channel unless they're private. So you get that, "I heard you taking to Bob about XYZ".
We use cameras on team meetings. It helps with the human connection as well as with being present when you can see other people and look them in the eye.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
1% wealth is not pure money. It is stock and real estate. Also shares.
To keep the value of their wealth the 99% needs to spend.
I absolutely cannot find the article I read now, but it was about an employee tracking suite of tools that companies often use in workplaces. It allows them to gauge the productivity of employees using a combination of hardware and software. Itβs apparently insanely expensive but useful for predatory companies that strive to squeeze every last remaining drop of hope from employees as long as it increases productivity. Thatβs the reason some companies want people back in office. So they can keep tabs on them.
I wonder this same thing about my company. The only rational theory I've heard - which is completely unconfirmed - is that they aren't willing to sell the building because it's still needed for the IT team and a few other purposes, but need a certain occupancy level to not be penalized on their taxes.
Power hungry middle managers mainly
- The companoes are locked into commercial real estate
2 ) Working at home is making the middle manager obsolete. I think google's ceo said that he didn't know how to promote managers he cant see. I personally think mamagement is corporate welfare.
There's a thing that cult leaders often do where they make increasingly stricter demands on their followers, it reduces the number of members, but the one who remain are much more easily controlled (because they self selected for that trait. I think something similar is part of the picture for these companies. The people who simply do as they are told and come back (as opposed to looking for new jobs) are more easily controlled by the company.
Also you can't always assume that just because a company is really big it's always making the most best, always correct choices. Like GE managed with "vitality curves."