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

91–100 of 209 posts

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

#91

Post by unsupp0rted »

oblak wrote: post #89
unsupp0rted wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When this lady applied for the technical phone support job, did she mention that her toddler would be on the calls? If her manager were to “secret shopper” call in, how much kindness and grace would they show for being forced to sit though a children’s cartoon while quoting 5-figure invoice numbers back and forth?

Eh, your initial argument sounded neutral enough but this is bad. Would you jump this hard on the support person if the noise was a office cacophony?

What is bad? Stating that her company would find this to be an unacceptable standard of service quality?

Sharing experiences and opinions on HN that are unpopular?

I didn’t complain to the worker, the company, or give her any attitude about it. None of that would have helped me get my task done.

They have other agents who are more professional, so next time I could get routed to somebody else.

To answer your question:

If the noise was an office cacophony then I’d put the blame on the company that tolerates it.

The noise was a children’s cartoon and a babbling child.

The worker has a responsibility to either get noise-canceling tools or work from a quiet area of the home. It’s 2024- it’s really easy to do either one.

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

#92

Post by dudul »

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…

At the core of it, this is the reason we're now seeing the RTO push. Execs don't want peons to share their privileges. They were fine with it during lockdown because got to keep making money. But now, back to the field, serfs!

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

#93

Post by [deleted] »

midasuni wrote: post #82
unsupp0rted wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When this lady applied for the technical phone support job, did she mention that her toddler would be on the calls? If her manager were to “secret shopper” call in, how much kindness and grace would they show for being forced to sit though a children’s cartoon while quoting 5-figure invoice numbers back and forth?

To emphasise she probably didn’t realise their was background noise. I don’t phone call centra much but the background noise in some is very frustrating.

[deleted]

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

#94

Post by guilhas »

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.

Everyone is still experimenting what works

Most companies are settling for hybrid, and workers not returning are slowly being left behind. Mostly because "classic" companies processes are not ready for remote workers

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

#95

Post by hypercube33 »

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…

Is there a citation of Gates comment? I wasn't able to find anything

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

#96

Post by BossingAround »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #77
BossingAround wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When this lady applied for the technical phone support job, did she mention that her toddler would be on the calls? If her manager were to “secret shopper” call in, how much kindness and grace would they show for being forced to sit though a children’s cartoon while quoting 5-figure invoice numbers back and forth?

> If her manager were to “secret shopper” call in, how much kindness and grace would they show for being forced to sit though a children’s cartoon while quoting 5-figure invoice numbers back and forth?

Hopefully the identical amount? I don't know why the answer would differ in any meaningful way.

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

#97

Post by QuadmasterXLII »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #69
sshine wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is some implicit assumption that drug testing is a safety measure. I am quite convinced it is a productivity measure.

it is neither. 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…

You’ve got causation backwards, look at the norway vs US overdoses per capita

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

#98

Post by BossingAround »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #91
oblak wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, your initial argument sounded neutral enough but this is bad. Would you jump this hard on the support person if the noise was a office cacophony?

What is bad? Stating that her company would find this to be an unacceptable standard of service quality? Sharing experiences and opinions on HN that are unpopular? I didn’t complain to the worker, the company, or give her any attitude about it. None of that would have helped me get my task done. They have other agents who are more professional, so next time I could get routed to somebody else. To answer your question…

> It’s 2024- it’s really easy to do either one

It's easy if you earn $100k+ of course. It's not easy with $40k in a two-bedroom house with a toddler as a single parent.

"But then, she's not supposed to have that job if she can't do it," I can already hear you say. To that, I'd say sure, you could do that, if you're willing to pay for a several year long maternity leave from your taxes until the parents can place their kids in kindergartens.

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

#99

Post by badpun »

afarviral wrote: post #85
badpun wrote: post #60

I will agree to abolish the inequality caused by WfH when CEOs agree to abolish the inequality caused by salary discrepancies (i.e. never). We leave in an inequal society, and for good reasons.

Who wouldn't agree that difficult work should be payed more? Work that requires the acquisition of skills should be payed a bit more too, no? There should be a system in place which determines the appropriate compensation, not arbitrary compensation as determined by the market.

1. I agree that difficult work should be payed more. For example, military service is as difficult as being a CEO (just in a different way), but pays a fraction of CEO's salary.

2. Should job requiring acquisition of skills pay more? Probably, but the discrepancy shouldn't be large. Most high-end jobs require 4 extra years of schooling (and thus forteited income) - whereas the job will be performed for 30-40 years. Thus, in a fair world, high-end jobs would pay around 10% than jobs requiring only high-school diploma.

Right now, the high-skill jobs largely go to children of parents with higher social and financial capital, which are able to roll out a red carpet for their children to the well paying jobs (via being role models on how to land a place in corporate hierarchy, choosing good schools, paying for tutors, encouraging choosing a profitable major in college etc.). Many people in high-end jobs are largely there because of their parents.

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

#100

Post by zelphirkalt »

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?

Maybe Amazon with loads of cheap work and a huge name that still holds a lot of reputation in the tech sector for engineers is not the best example. But a smaller business with their main workforce quitting losing hundreds of thousands of dollar/euro might reconsider.
Post reply on HN