this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
411 points (96.6% liked)

Asklemmy

43962 readers
1384 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I have posted this on Reddit (askeconomics) a while back but got no good replies. Copying it here because I don't want to send traffic to Reddit.

What do you think?

I see a big push to take employees back to the office. I personally don't mind either working remote or in the office, but I think big companies tend to think rationally in terms of cost/benefit and I haven't seen a convincing explanation yet of why they are so keen to have everyone back.

If remote work was just as productive as in-person, a remote-only company could use it to be more efficient than their work-in-office competitors, so I assume there's no conclusive evidence that this is the case. But I haven't seen conclusive evidence of the contrary either, and I think employers would have good reason to trumpet any findings at least internally to their employees ("we've seen KPI so-and-so drop with everyone working from home" or "project X was severely delayed by lack of in-person coordination" wouldn't make everyone happy to return in presence, but at least it would make a good argument for a manager to explain to their team)

Instead, all I keep hearing is inspirational wish-wash like "we value the power of working together". Which is fine, but why are we valuing it more than the cost of office space?

On the side of employees, I often see arguments like "these companies made a big investment in offices and now they don't want to look stupid by leaving them empty". But all these large companies have spent billions to acquire smaller companies/products and dropped them without a second thought. I can't believe the same companies would now be so sentimentally attached to office buildings if it made any economic sense to close them.

(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MothBookkeeper@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I wonder this same thing about my company. The only rational theory I've heard - which is completely unconfirmed - is that they aren't willing to sell the building because it's still needed for the IT team and a few other purposes, but need a certain occupancy level to not be penalized on their taxes.

[–] KazuyaDarklight@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whether you like the idea of company culture etc not withstanding, it's easier to push in office where people are sitting in an environment that you have the power to craft and shape. As a predominantly call center based business our reporting has shown improvement moving from pure WFH to hybrid, I'm not going to apply that to other businesses, but for us it worked out that way.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Owners and executives may own companies that own the buildings and don’t want their investments to fail.

[–] Seanya@feddit.ch 1 points 1 year ago

If we don't lay off employees, how can the stock price rise? With the stock price rising, the cost of labor decreases, killing two birds with one stone.

load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί