this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
548 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

59607 readers
3005 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Return to office is ‘dead,’ Stanford economist says. Here’s why::The share of workers being called back to the office has flatlined, suggesting remote work is an entrenched feature of the U.S. labor market.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 164 points 11 months ago (5 children)

This is the thing. Remote work as an option helps everyone. Lower costs for the employer, happier employees, the people who do want to work in an office have a better time because it's less crowded, the people who need to care for kids or parents have an easier time...it's entirely a win for everyone.

Except real estate companies, and therein lies the problem.

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 56 points 11 months ago (1 children)

nothing has made me more sick recently than learning that these investor scum are trying to flog people back into the office because they gambled too much money on office buildings, so obviously this is the correct next step. never mind eating the fucking loss, never mind gambling on sports like a normal human being, these fucking vampires think they get THAT much control over your life for THAT petty and convoluted and i am sorry COMPLETELY FUCKING MADE UP reason like 'we gambled on offices too much'

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 6 points 11 months ago

You just described investor landlords.

[–] KnightontheSun@lemmy.world 42 points 11 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)
[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We have a 2 day in office hybrid schedule, where two days are the group days where more meetings are scheduled. But it's flexible. If you want / need to change the days you come in, no one says anything. It's a large team, so there's always at least a couple people in the office on the off days.

Seems to work out for everyone. The more introverted just show up on the off days, and no one cares. Every once in a while, the manager will encourage but not insist on war room kind of gatherings for some aggressive deadline with high visibility. End of the day, work just needs to be done, and everyone is welcome to do what's most efficient for themselves.

Team seems happy enough.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

We have a 2 day in office hybrid schedule,

everyone is welcome to do what's most efficient for themselves

Well, which is it? You can't have it both ways.

[–] cosmo@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

He's literally saying that while the workplace encourages collaboration at work two days a week, you don't have to if it doesn't fit your schedule.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Typical lemmy response. It's either all or nothing.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't benefit them, though; they just prefer it.

There are tons of people who prefer it but don't actually get any benefit out of it.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How is work being more pleasant not a benefit?

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I've never met an overbearing middle manager who was pleasant. Every single one, without fail, has been a complete grouch and terrible to be around.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

Okay, I thought you were talking about the employees, not the manager.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 42 points 11 months ago (2 children)

What gets me is that in this mad dash to address climate change, WFH is a valuable tool to reduce emissions from commuting. I remember driving during the early lockdowns and thinking it would be possible to skateboard down the freeway. You'd think Democrats would be encouraging WFH as a part of their green initiatives, but I can see that having donors in real estate and fossil fuels might run counter to that.

[–] jmp242@sopuli.xyz 6 points 11 months ago

I've been saying this forever. We don't need new tech to be developed or rolled out, we don't need to move everyone to a city and take a train, we don't need everyone to buy a new electric car, we just need to take away the reason 1/3 or more of driving occurs. And we already proved we can do it. It's insane to not make that part of the climate goals.

This compounds too - less traffic means less need to add more lanes, or run more trains, or pave more parking lots, etc... So basically "bad, unnecessary" construction can go away. From what I can tell, almost no one actually wants a larger highway except because of traffic. But most of the traffic is commuters. We might have enough capacity (if you remove most commuters) for a very very long time to handle tourists, delivery trucks, and emergency services...

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It’s even good for the environment! The amount of time, money, and energy (and that energy needs to be generated somehow) used to support everyone’s daily commute is IMMENSE. More than a few cities noted significantly improved air quality when the quarantines were in effect in 2020, and there’s still a noticeable difference in a lot of places.

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

I'm an essential worker, so I kept commuting pretty much like normal throughout the pandemic.

During the initial lockdowns I was averaging a whole MPG better just from not having any traffic.

And the real kicker is that my schedule is kind of weird, so I already commute at times when traffic isn't too bad, I normally start at 2:30 in the afternoon and work 12 hours until the 2:30 in the morning (before anyone asks, my job isn't very physically demanding, and I have more and more frequent days off, so 12 hour shifts aren't too bad) so I'm going in after people have been running out to do stuff on their lunch breaks and before schools let out so traffic is minimal then, and I usually don't even see a half dozen other cars on the road when I'm heading home, and some of my shifts are weekends so traffic is usually even lighter during the day. And my commute is only about 10 miles/20 minutes, no highways or anything, just normal semi-rural to suburban main roads.

And so a slight reduction in traffic during my commute into work (and no real difference to my commute home) got me a small but noticeable difference in my average fuel economy. Now all told that means I probably only saved a few gallons, maybe a tank of gas myself, but think of all of the millions of people who commute in much heavier traffic both ways, possibly even further, and how much extra gas they're burning releasing CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere.

Imagine what more people being able to work from home, better public transit and carpooling to reduce number of cars on the road, companies staggering the start/end times of their business days so that everyone isn't commuting at the same time, etc. could do.

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That said, where I work, our policy explicitly forbids us from taking care of people at home during our work day...

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Hmmm. How...would they know?

Also, I think there's a question about the legality of your employer trying to enforce what you do in your own home, workday or not.

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They won't unless you tell them really, I think they're just loading up a bunch of unappetizing restrictions on WFH in hopes people will just give up and come back into the office

Why they care so much is beyond me, though, with the kind of employer it is, but someone in the higher chain of command seems to be allergic to WFH, always has been resistant to allowing it

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Devious. And baffling.