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

131–140 of 209 posts

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

#131

Post by analog31 »

>>>> Business leaders rightly worry that this divide could hurt morale among front-line staff, undermine perceived fairness, and create new rifts in the workforce.

Working at a multinational, people have had varied work arrangements, perquisites, social hierarchies, and pay scales, for a long time. WFH is just a new wrinkle, where you're one of the "remotes" but you live in the same town for some reason. Also, if you think about it, the network of suppliers, contractors, and customers represent quasi-remotes in the sense that they're also involved in the business but are not locating themselves on site, and are jockeying for advantages just like everybody else.

The remotes are mostly invisible. The winds of self-interest that fill our sails continue to blow even if no other ship is in sight.

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

#132

Post by Mountain_Skies »

Simon_ORourke wrote: post #18
figassis wrote: post #5

I 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?

One of the top stories today on LinkedIn is that CEOs are increasingly waiving the white flag and admitting surrender in the RTO battle. There's work that needs to get done and companies fighting wars against themselves and their employees is a needless distraction. Now it's a race to see who can put an end the self inflicted wounds the fastest and get a leg up on those still fighting themselves.

https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/ceos-give-up-on-full-tim...

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

#133

Post by redcobra762 »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #128
redcobra762 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I presume you said nothing to alert her to the issue, of course? Just got emotional about it and secretly resented the woman for having children…

Of course I didn’t mention it. What would this have accomplished, other than upsetting her and establishing an adversarial call? I was calling in to get a task done. I got it done as quickly as possible and moved on. Next time if I get her again, I’ll request a different agent by name, who was professional and capable last time.

[flagged]

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

#134

Post by d0gsg0w00f »

jonathankoren wrote: post #110
vasco wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

This comment betrays the old and persistent idea that lower status people are inherently shifty and lazy, while higher status people are inherently more virtuous. Let’s say for argument’s sake that truck drivers proportionally engage in more risky behavior. This can be either the use of stimulants or simply driving tired. Why is that? Drivers’ — like many low status workers — jobs security is more precarious and are…

    This comment betrays the old and persistent idea that lower status people are inherently shifty and lazy, while higher status people are inherently more virtuous.
I think this is because people are applying survivorship bias. It's really difficult to make it to those status levels while abusing drugs and alcohol. And even if you party hard at the top you must be able to "handle your shit".

Success at the top is a careful dance of social nuance. If you fly to an on-site, get drunk in the hotel bar, and are late to the meeting or smell like booze, you're social status will be impacted unless you're a wizard with social excuses or make up for it in some other way.

So--in a way--the success is the greatest drug test.

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

#135

Post by calamari4065 »

madsbuch wrote: post #24
throwup238 wrote: post #2

The 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…

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 people regularly die because your grocery store cashier smokes weed after their shift?

How many people could be hurt by a drunk pilot, and how many could be hurt by working at a Walmart while high?

The point is that we test where there is no reasonable danger at all and don't test when there is. Why? We drug test poor people and not wealthy people.

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

#136

Post by sgt101 »

deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #122
krystianantoni wrote: post #16

The 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.

I agree. Notably missing from the conversation is the struggling commercial real estate industry and investments that have already been committed into that market.

Also a vast amount of commercial real estate is money laundering.

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

#138

Post by qwytw »

jonathankoren wrote: post #110
vasco wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

This comment betrays the old and persistent idea that lower status people are inherently shifty and lazy, while higher status people are inherently more virtuous. Let’s say for argument’s sake that truck drivers proportionally engage in more risky behavior. This can be either the use of stimulants or simply driving tired. Why is that? Drivers’ — like many low status workers — jobs security is more precarious and are…

> idea that lower status people are inherently shifty and lazy, while higher status people are inherently more virtuous

It's not about that. But also statistically on average that idea is accurate in this case at least. The qualifications and self-discipline required to become a pilot are significantly higher than for a driver. Your also surrounded by many other people all the time so it's much harder to not get noticed. Also AFAIK random testing for alcohol is certainly a thing for pilots.

> that employers can’t put the same pressures on pilots

One might argue that they would more or less end up doing the same on their own. The cost/risk ratio is extremely different compared to truck drivers. Also costs of having extra pilots/allowing them to work less are not that significant relative to road transportation.

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

#139

Post by unsupp0rted »

redcobra762 wrote: post #133
unsupp0rted wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course I didn’t mention it. What would this have accomplished, other than upsetting her and establishing an adversarial call? I was calling in to get a task done. I got it done as quickly as possible and moved on. Next time if I get her again, I’ll request a different agent by name, who was professional and capable last time.

[flagged]

I didn’t need to address the issue.

Sometimes the best escalation is no escalation: get your task done and get on with your day.

I don’t have a responsibility to their company to improve their service quality.

To me it was a brief nuisance that turned into a shareable anecdote.

If this is sufficiently annoying to other customers, they can address it however they choose to, or not… doesn’t affect me.

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

#140

Post by firesteelrain »

calamari4065 wrote: post #135
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 people regularly die because your grocery store cashier smokes weed after their shift? How many people could be hurt by a drunk pilot, and how many could be hurt by working at a Walmart while high? The point is that we test where there is no reasonable danger at all and don't test when there is. Why? We drug test poor people and not wealthy people.

My daughter worked at Publix and was only drug tested at time of employment. Just like I did when I got my engineering job. I heard Publix does random drug testing, not sure.

Walmart is the same.

“ After pilots and flight attendants have been hired, they are subject to random drug screenings. Federal regulation detail the percentage of the total employees who should be subject to random testing in a given year, and this figure is usually around 50% and varies by the positive test rate from previous data. As drug testing is random, flight and ramp crew don't know when these tests will occur. Pilots and flight attendants who are randomly selected for drug screenings will often be met on the jet bridge after passengers have deplaned. An official holding a clipboard is usually the sign of an upcoming random drug screening.” - https://simpleflying.com/pilot-drug-test-frequency-guide/

Post reply on HN