61–70 of 209 posts
I think the office PR have almost exhausted all ideas to try pushing people back in the smart city or interment champ for slaves who should not be aware of they status...
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…
This argument gets used a lot in politics, whenever a situation is to be improved people claim "but we suffered, that's not fair!!!".
Personally, I know this from fellow second-generation migrants here in Germany that are opposed to how "easy" refugees have it - their claim is that they had to fight German bureaucracy for years until they were allowed to work and whatnot. Which is valid, yes, but they seem to be unaware that times have changed.
I 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.
That comment may apply to the general topic often, but this article clearly mentions "just pay them more" as a solution. It's really quite a balanced read.
You can find a hundred side effects of that - people who want to work in their underpants, not get ready for work, not shower, have a flexible schedule, etc., as individual 'inequalities.' If fixing the pay makes other complaints disappear, were they ever a primary factor?
FWIW, I do think the pendulum will shift in our lifetime. The 'You Call the Handyman' South Park really hit home for us, and I can totally see that now and even more in 20 or so years. Can you imagine needing something fixed in your house and trying to barter your skills? I sure can't!
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? This is an interesting question but not all drugs decrease performance. For instance, if a pilot responsibly takes some wakey meds before landing a long haul flight it may be a good thing. There’s a reason for the “I can’t function before the morning coffee” expression. I remember a documentary many years ago about long haul pilots who went partying HARD t…
Yeah, a lot of people tend to be later-risers. The realities of the 9-5 job mean that they have to get up at 6-7 to get the kids ready for school, then get themselves ready for work, and then the commute to work... despite that going completely against their chronotype.
WFH alleviates a lot of that stress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/
Under those conditions tax free benefits like working from home (convenience and not having to pay expensive train tickets) can be a nice topping to a modest salary increase when moving jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the assumption you're missing in the circular argument is that gay people could be blackmailed against other entities than the FBI. For example, "give us this FBI file or else we'll release a scandalous photo of you and this gentleman to your wife" kind of a thing. Of course, as being gay becomes more normalized and less of a secret, FBI wouldn't need to take it into consideration. How true or not that thinki…
Wouldn't it be more relevant to determine if their potential hire has had an undiscovered affair in the past, or is currently cheating? Why aren't they doing this now if it was really about the potential for blackmail?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the assumption you're missing in the circular argument is that gay people could be blackmailed against other entities than the FBI. For example, "give us this FBI file or else we'll release a scandalous photo of you and this gentleman to your wife" kind of a thing. Of course, as being gay becomes more normalized and less of a secret, FBI wouldn't need to take it into consideration. How true or not that thinki…
Wouldn't it be more relevant to determine if their potential hire has had an undiscovered affair in the past, or is currently cheating? Why aren't they doing this now if it was really about the potential for blackmail?
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…
> 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! This argument gets used a lot in politics, whenever a situation is to be improved people claim "but we suffered, that's not fair!!!". Personally, I know this from fellow second-generation migrants here in Germany that are opposed to how…
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.
There is some implicit assumption that drug testing is a safety measure. I am quite convinced it is a productivity measure.
Otherwise, you'd see productivity being better in places that allow drug testing of normal employees and worse off in places that do not. But that's not the case: Retail employees in Norway aren't really less productive than those in the US.
Plus, if it really were a productivity measure, why would you not drug test more professionals and salaried employees? Does their productivity not matter? Wouldn't more small businesses find drug testing worth the money?
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.