The same inequality between c level and frontline workers exists on so many levels with other perks is it possible that the c level just don’t want to lose its privileges? In Europe as a manager you get subsidized cars where the company pays for gas, private corner offices, equity or special bonus programs not always are benefits packages available for frontline workers… and now they talk about inequality if more staff could have perks like wfh, there always was a divide between staff that needs to be on site and other, only other staff also starts to get some perks in the form of wfh… why don’t give the frontline workers a company car, a private rest zone and better amenities or cash?
The growing inequality of who gets to work from home
11–20 of 209 posts
Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home
#12The same inequality exists with drug testing too. A lot of low wage roles get drug tested on a regular basis while higher paying careers don’t. Outside the military, pilots rarely get tested despite the fact they’re responsible for many more lives than fork lift operators or truck drivers (who often do get tested). Doctors pretty much only get tested if they botch a surgery or someone reports them. Lawyers? Wallstree…
Perhaps a reason for this is that not everybody agrees that drugs are all that bad. Half of silicon valley allegedly is micro-dosing all sorts of things and apparently benefiting from that. Steve Jobs famously advocated using LSD. The Vietnam war famously had a lot of drug abuse. WW II soldiers and leadership were consuming epic amounts of amphetamines. And that wasn't just the Nazis. Companies aren't testing for thi…
> Perhaps a reason for this is that not everybody agrees that drugs are all that bad
As an explanation, this is implausible to the point of impossible.
The same employers drug test lower-level employees but (e.g. in the warehouse) but don't test other employees (e.g. in the office).
Amazon drug tests warehouse workers but not AWS engineers.
It is difficult to come up for a coherent theory for that that includes "as an organisation, we don't think drugs are all that bad"
Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home
#13I feel like this is missing the forest for the trees. Perhaps salt in the wound, if you will. Pay a forklift driver or warehouse worker 150k a year, and see how many complain about not working from home.
I don't think those are the kinds of jobs that have workers that expect to work from home. If you deal with physical assets, machinery, direct-customer communication, etc, you probably don't expect to be able to do your job outside of your company-assigned post anyway. On the other hand, anybody that works in a cubical and mostly deals with a phone/computer could probably easily expect that they would be able to work…
"I don't think those are the kinds of jobs that have workers that expect to work from home."
I think especially for forklift drivers and alike - this is about to change. With teleoperating semi autonomous machinery, most of these jobs could be then remote as well. But it will take some time as currently humans and simple forklifts are way cheaper.
Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home
#14I feel like this is missing the forest for the trees. Perhaps salt in the wound, if you will. Pay a forklift driver or warehouse worker 150k a year, and see how many complain about not working from home.
I don't think those are the kinds of jobs that have workers that expect to work from home. If you deal with physical assets, machinery, direct-customer communication, etc, you probably don't expect to be able to do your job outside of your company-assigned post anyway. On the other hand, anybody that works in a cubical and mostly deals with a phone/computer could probably easily expect that they would be able to work…
I for some reason think about these things a lot, even though I guess I'm not in the front line anymore and have it pretty nice.
I can remember in 2010 or so having two friends who worked from home - one doing generic helpdesk in a small apartment, and one doing medical coding in a trailer. Neither paid well at all, and never did I get this sense of jealousy. Perhaps their lives were easier because of it, but it was far from the giant sun lit home offices people seem to imagine.
I also think a lot about how retail has changed. As a child, you had actual sales people in a lot of places who seemed happy to help. Probably on commission. Even the non-commissioned jobs people didn't seem so miserable. Probably because the wage gap wasn't as huge as it is today. So many people I encounter seem bothered by my presence and genuinely miserable, I try to avoid even going to stores anymore. It's a lose lose lose situation.
Of course, I have no answers for any of this, just observations from a middling age man.
Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home
#15Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home
#16The discussion is pulled by big income of office space owners and builders. Secondly there is shortage of good mid and line management that cannot cope without looking over shoulder due to various reasons.
Any argument to support their profit is good.
Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home
#17The same inequality exists with drug testing too. A lot of low wage roles get drug tested on a regular basis while higher paying careers don’t. Outside the military, pilots rarely get tested despite the fact they’re responsible for many more lives than fork lift operators or truck drivers (who often do get tested). Doctors pretty much only get tested if they botch a surgery or someone reports them. Lawyers? Wallstree…
> The NSA even had to make an official exceptio The way I had it explained to me in the 90s was while drug use was disqualifying for things like the FBI, for the NSA it was fine-ish provided you were open about it.
I have had personal conversations with people who went through involved security clearance processes in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 00's. Between those times I can tell you that everyone but the FBI got more lax about pot (but not cocaine) and homosexuality (even the FBI didn't care about that by the mid 2000's) but not more lax about gambling - even in states where it was already legal. They aren't on the lookout for straight arrows to hire, they're on the lookout for people who can be blackmailed to steal information. Once things like simple weed possession became nothing more than a small civil penalty, there wasn't any way to use the threat of exposure as a way of blackmailing someone. Once people knew they couldn't generally be fired / blackballed for homosexuality, that lever disappeared.
Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home
#18I understand the problem, but it feels like this existed for a while and no business manager cared about it until they started losing the RTO battle. This seems like a way to boost that argument without actually caring for the employees.
Are they losing the RTO battle though? Amazon don't seem to be too bothered if you quit rather than go back to the office at the moment - there again Amazon might be just looking to reduce headcount on the cheap too.
There's a glut of office space where I live, something like 35% of new offices are unoccupied, so maybe that's due to over-supply or failing RTO policies?
Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps a reason for this is that not everybody agrees that drugs are all that bad. Half of silicon valley allegedly is micro-dosing all sorts of things and apparently benefiting from that. Steve Jobs famously advocated using LSD. The Vietnam war famously had a lot of drug abuse. WW II soldiers and leadership were consuming epic amounts of amphetamines. And that wasn't just the Nazis. Companies aren't testing for thi…
> Perhaps a reason for this is that not everybody agrees that drugs are all that bad As an explanation, this is implausible to the point of impossible. The same employers drug test lower-level employees but (e.g. in the warehouse) but don't test other employees (e.g. in the office). Amazon drug tests warehouse workers but not AWS engineers. It is difficult to come up for a coherent theory for that that includes "as a…
obviously it is the belief of upper management that low level workers cannot be trusted to behave and work to their maximum if they're on drugs, while the "elites" require such drugs to reach their maximum potential.
Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think those are the kinds of jobs that have workers that expect to work from home. If you deal with physical assets, machinery, direct-customer communication, etc, you probably don't expect to be able to do your job outside of your company-assigned post anyway. On the other hand, anybody that works in a cubical and mostly deals with a phone/computer could probably easily expect that they would be able to work…
I for some reason think about these things a lot, even though I guess I'm not in the front line anymore and have it pretty nice. I can remember in 2010 or so having two friends who worked from home - one doing generic helpdesk in a small apartment, and one doing medical coding in a trailer. Neither paid well at all, and never did I get this sense of jealousy. Perhaps their lives were easier because of it, but it was…
> Neither paid well at all, and never did I get this sense of jealousy.
You might just not be one of these people. For some people, the feeling of being on your way to work is an existential dread. Or like you're leaving your life behind to live a different one that you don't generally enjoy for a while. Some of those people would likely do anything to avoid that feeling. I think for those people, working from home is epic. You get to go to work every day on what feels more like your terms and your life, whatever that life may be. Instead of molding myself into the image of my work environment every day, I can mold my workplace more into myself. Feeding me into:
> but it was far from the giant sun lit home offices people seem to imagine.
For some people, the ideal working conditions are a dimly lit basement, believe it or not.
> [The generally unhappy state of front line workers yesteryear and this one.]
Just 10 years ago, I was working front lines at a Super Target, making 15 cents above my state's minimum wage, which amounted to something like $8.50/hour. I'm in general a fairly.. well "stoic" might be the nicer word.. person, so faking a smile for the sake of a stranger's comfort would have cost me more in energy than my employer was paying me, if that makes sense. That's not to say I'm a jerk to people on purpose, by any means. But if I'm in a bad mood because I left for work at 4:30AM to make barely more than enough for a room to rent, peanut butter sandwiches, and my cell phone bill, it would have been difficult to summon the strength. This is mostly just to say that I agree with your observation, but I empathize more with the employees than the customers who feel they were under-helped.
Observations from someone who will be entering the middling ages soon.