61–70 of 216 posts
My unioned wife lives a life I can only dream of. The respect, the dignity of her job makes me feel like I made the wrong choice by getting into tech. Unionization is the answer. For a long time, tech workers were gaslighted into thinking that unions will not let them get paid high salaries. Guess what, without unions, tech workers don't even have job stability. Forget high salaries. Vote for unions.
I dislike RTO for one simple reason . I'm not at work to make friends, I'm not at work to chit chat. I'm not at work so we can talk about who won the last football game . I go to work in exchange for currency, which is required to acquire goods and services. All this other crap, all these holiday parties, all of this let's dance in diversity videos, no that's not what I'm here for . Most of the time coming to the off…
I dislike RTO for one simple reason . I'm not at work to make friends, I'm not at work to chit chat. I'm not at work so we can talk about who won the last football game . I go to work in exchange for currency, which is required to acquire goods and services. All this other crap, all these holiday parties, all of this let's dance in diversity videos, no that's not what I'm here for . Most of the time coming to the off…
> If I had to think, I imagine the entire point of RTO mandates is to keep cities sustainable. In a few cases (certainly not all), it's to keep the c-suite's reputation sustainable. If you're a CEO that signed a lease or construction contract on any piece of property since, idk, 2015, you have, in some way, burned a lot of money on a piece of ground that could have, in many cases, been replaced with a far cheaper int…
For companies that own, Low occupancy = asset write downs = higher cost of capital.
I dislike RTO for one simple reason . I'm not at work to make friends, I'm not at work to chit chat. I'm not at work so we can talk about who won the last football game . I go to work in exchange for currency, which is required to acquire goods and services. All this other crap, all these holiday parties, all of this let's dance in diversity videos, no that's not what I'm here for . Most of the time coming to the off…
Maybe JPMorgan doesn't want employees like you; maybe they want employees who chit-chat, and become attached to their company, for various (non-kLoC) reasons. Not every workplace is for everyone.
Workers need to tread carefully here. If you there's no need to be in the office, what's to stop corporate from replacing you with an Indian that costs 1/3rd as much? Push back too hard on RTO and you may not have a job at all in five years.
These companies already offshore every change they can get, you aren't going to preserve your job by going in each day and staring at your boss with giant sad eyes like Puss in Boots.
I dislike RTO for one simple reason . I'm not at work to make friends, I'm not at work to chit chat. I'm not at work so we can talk about who won the last football game . I go to work in exchange for currency, which is required to acquire goods and services. All this other crap, all these holiday parties, all of this let's dance in diversity videos, no that's not what I'm here for . Most of the time coming to the off…
Most of my great friends I met at work
It's not entirely unlikely this is related to that as well.
I think RTO mandates will be the straw that broke the camel's back, for a lot of Americans. Workers in sectors that previously wouldn't even think about unionizing, are now having serious discussions. Going back to commutes, wasting time, for no obvious reason - yeah, that did wake up people. EDIT: I'm talking about rigid 5 days a week RTO policy. As other have pointed out, having a flexible WFH policy is often "good…
So why do companies insist? If it has no meaningful impact on productivity, and workers don't like it (including a lot of managers), why push it? That's why I believe that companies have some evidence (or belief) that work from home employees are not as productive, enough so to wage this political battle and pay loads in office expenses.
I think that WFH substantially shifts the power balance to the worker. if I don't have to worry about my commute, or which city or country I'm actually working in, then the barriers to me changing employer start to really drop to zero. so if I feel bad enough about the situation, I can just spin up a new job without changing .. anything.
I understand if everyone else is WFH and I'm only hiring in office, that puts me at a disadvantage. I'm still willing to consider this thesis.
The key to me is the flexibility - I have the option of WFH 2 days per week, but most weeks I'm in the office 5 days (sometimes a half day on Saturday) because I am fortunate to have a "real office" with a door, a nice view, a stocked break area - and no home distractions. If I was still in a cube farm with a barely stocked vending machine (where I spent the vast majority of my career) I'd be using every WFH moment I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
American society doesn't want to accept that a lot of our problems happen because the parents aren't home. Michael Moore had an interesting scene in Bowling for Columbine where he showed a 6 year old shooter's mother had to work hours away daily and wasn't home. Mine and most of my friends parents always had to be outside of the house during our formative years. We had very robust economy in the 90s/2000s that pretty…
I agree but would take it further: a very aggressive income tax on any non-primary earner in a household that has a total income above 2 or 3 times the median wage. I know there's a lot of "line must go up" types that salivate at the idea of maximizing worker participation rate and GDP, but I think life is probably better when the thumb is put on the scale such that only one breadwinner is encouraged (no matter their…