71–80 of 409 posts
Here's a photo of the newsroom so you can get a sense of the degree to which they work in proximity: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/12/18/opinion/sunday/18...
What a nightmare. Now imagine half of them being on the phone....terrible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everybody should be you, if possible. Having enough savings to be able not to worry about the nearest future is not just a perfect option, it's a necessity.
Unfortunately it's not a realistic option for most people. If we're talking about "shoulds", then we should have a welfare state that covers these scenarios rather than putting the burden on individuals, many of whom will not have the means to implement it even if they wanted to.
Here's a photo of the newsroom so you can get a sense of the degree to which they work in proximity: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/12/18/opinion/sunday/18...
So unlike a modern tech company, they sit farther apart and at least have barriers between their desks?
Meanwhile, my employer has said zero remote work once the state transitions into the next phase. They want to be "fair" to everyone, including those who have positions that cannot be performed remotely. So, you have a co-morbidity? Nope. You have no childcare suddenly? Nope. It's startling how stuck in the 1980's some people are. Just absolutely astonishing.
Further, we are being given less than 24 hours notice to come back into the office. It's just absurd, and it has eroded any trust that I once had in the company.
I wonder how good their remote security is. I imagine every single government regularly tries to hack them.
- Cloud security?
- Controlling physical safeguards remotely?
- Something different?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a world of difference between what some 13 year old said on Twitter in 2011 and how a business actively treats it's employees today.
Fair. But it should be a last resort not the go to response.
Meanwhile, my employer has said zero remote work once the state transitions into the next phase. They want to be "fair" to everyone, including those who have positions that cannot be performed remotely. So, you have a co-morbidity? Nope. You have no childcare suddenly? Nope. It's startling how stuck in the 1980's some people are. Just absolutely astonishing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately it's not a realistic option for most people. If we're talking about "shoulds", then we should have a welfare state that covers these scenarios rather than putting the burden on individuals, many of whom will not have the means to implement it even if they wanted to.
I'm inclined to agree, but I do wonder how we avoid people just adjusting their risk threshold to account for the welfare state. I know it seems to work in other places, but I'm not convinced that what works in Scandinavia (or wherever) will work in the US. It seems like the US has a lot of other problems that it needs to sort out in order to be in the same ballpark as these model countries with respect to successful…
As it stands, it looks like the US is using its lack of a social floor to force people back to work under unsafe conditions, regardless of whether that’s rational or necessary, which will result in masses of unnecessary injuries and deaths.
How vicious can one (mob) be against another co-worker when you can't phisically see him to calibrate what's really going on and the reaction to what you do?