Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 209 posts

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#41

Post by vasco »

awongh wrote: post #28
madsbuch wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this comment represent a weird sentiment: if you drugt test in one field, you should equally drug test I all fields. How many airplanes crashed due to The pilot being on drugs? it seems like introducing a whole machinery to just have the same resting is an industrial scale waste of resources. However, people regularly die because of drunk and tired drivers.

> How many airplanes crashed due to The pilot being on drugs? As long as testing is uncommon you could say that number will remain at zero or near zero simply for lack of data. You comment implies but doesn’t state explicitly that you think truck drivers are more likely than pilots to be on drugs, is that true though?

Based on likely social setting difference due to salary difference plus the fact that truck drivers go through seedy places and do many long stretches alone, compared to pilots frequenting airports and hotels, and always working with a crew, I'm sure truck drivers use more drugs than airplane pilots. If you are not sure of this, I think your mind is "too open".

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#42

Post by gmac »

rapidaneurism wrote: post #30
bitschubser_ wrote: post #11

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 sta…

I think that this is partly because in Europe taxation is progressive and it quickly becomes quite high. (In the UK £100k-£120k is effectively taxed at 60%+ more if you have young kids) So there is a point where giving someone 10k take home pay rise costs the business much more than giving a frontline worker a 10k take home pay rise. But an EV car in the UK is taxed 98% less than the same amount in cash. Rest zones,…

In case that gives the wrong impression, UK marginal tax rates are a ridiculous mess, and come down below 60% again when you earn £125K+.

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/09/24/70percent/

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#43

Post by BossingAround »

chii wrote: post #19
freddie_mercury wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Surely, occam's razor applies here.

Low level workers have the highest chance of getting injured while operating heavy machinery -> highest chance of being drug tested by the police in such cases -> the management would rather spend money on drug testing than on the lawyers later on.

High-paid workers have a pretty small risk of injury -> very small risk of the government testing them -> management is not incentivized to spend money on drug testing (and possible hiring costs later on).

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#44

Post by 6510 »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #22
chii wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No its because usually low level jobs require you to operate heavy machinery like driving a truck or operating a forklift or work on the floor of the factory, or being around those things. Or for example handling cash at registers etc. I feel like this conspiracy is the author, and apparently hn needs to touch grass a little bit

A friend from Yugoslavia told me about his job there. Their lunch room looked like a grand cafe with every possible kind of liquor and a variety of beer on the tap. Around 11 am some of his coworkers had a few beers, in the sun, in front of the building. Around 1 they had some whiskey or vodka etc. At the end of the work day some went home, others stuck around. They had a few more drinks, some went home, others went out to eat together, some went home after dinner, some went back to the office. He regularly got very drunk. Sometimes he would make a row of chairs and sleep there. 7 am his boss would be the first to arrive. He was always happy to see someone was already there and made coffee. They sat around and chatted some more and he would start his shift an hour early (not paid ofc)

It wasn't that everyone got drunk at work every day, some more often than others, some rarely which made it kind of a special occasion if they stuck around.

He had the same assignments as his coworkers but completed them in half the time. Sometimes, at 11 am, he would just continue drinking beer while sitting in the sun and go home an hour early.

The funniest part was that they mostly talked about work. It was one lengthy extended meeting till 1 am, if they had some kind of deadline they would just work in their spare time while drinking (without pay)

No culture is strange until compared. I drink 2 liters of coffee, smoke a lot and consume lots of sugar. This is perfectly normal here.

edit: it was a desk job

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#45

Post by arketyp »

I studied at university and chose a programmer path quite indirectly and rather much because the thought of being physically and temporally bound to external and impersonal locations and tools and interactions, for labor, made me nauseous. I worked "remote" also at the office, reclusively, seen somewhat as an alien by colleagues (not unjustly) for whom meeting room bookings were actually critical. I'm not complaining, but it's not all glamour either. You get what you stake out.

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#46

Post by BossingAround »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #23

The other day I phoned a service provider and the lady’s kid was babbling in the background and a children’s show was playing throughout the call. I couldn’t get off the phone fast enough. Either invest in voice isolation or don’t work from home. Functionally this lady brought her kid to my home office and blasted a cartoon during our meeting. Is this harsh of me and an unpopular opinion? Yes. I agree that Human bein…

I totally understand the reaction. Then again, people with kids have it hard enough, let alone those that with low paying jobs. When that happens to me, I get annoyed, but then, I remind myself that I get to exit the call while the other person has to stay in that environment, trying to hustle for money, and I try to show them as much kindness and grace as is possible for me in that moment.

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#47

Post by ysofunny »

virtue3 wrote: post #35
madsbuch wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this comment represent a weird sentiment: if you drugt test in one field, you should equally drug test I all fields. How many airplanes crashed due to The pilot being on drugs? it seems like introducing a whole machinery to just have the same resting is an industrial scale waste of resources. However, people regularly die because of drunk and tired drivers.

How many bad economic decisions were based on cocaine usage back in the day? I think the point is that with higher paying and salaried jobs you are practically exempt from having repercussions due to drug usage while a lowerpaid wage worker is constantly in fear of getting fired over it.

arguably, by a similar logic, world war 2 was started by terrible decisions made while high on speed

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#48

Post by cracrecry »

So everybody needs to be miserable as if you are not miserable the rest of miserable people will look at you and say: That's not fair!! I am miserable so you must be miserable too!

Of all the "arguments" used by hired Public Relations companies hired to spin "work from home" in a bad light, this is the most stupid argument I have ever heard.

This makes me uncomfortable as probably because of that it could be the most successful.

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#49

Post by Baeocystin »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #22
chii wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No its because usually low level jobs require you to operate heavy machinery like driving a truck or operating a forklift or work on the floor of the factory, or being around those things. Or for example handling cash at registers etc. I feel like this conspiracy is the author, and apparently hn needs to touch grass a little bit

Seriously. I was drug tested when I worked at the shipyard. Not in my current job in tech. That doesn't bother me in the least, because I had hundreds more ways to accidentally kill either myself or a coworker when I was welding 100' up on the side of a ship than if I hazily mis-click a dialogue box now. No one complained about it at the shipyard, either, because we didn't want to get killed by a high idiot.
Post reply on HN