this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
791 points (99.3% liked)

People Twitter

8463 readers
2140 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
791
Hypocrites (infosec.pub)
submitted 1 day ago by Stamets@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jaennaet@sopuli.xyz 70 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Because the conservatives who populate the C-suite just about everywhere in the world have decided that control is more important than worker satisfaction or productivity.

Remote work is only for the owner class, not for the plebs

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 18 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

Nah, it's that they signed multi-year leases and have to justify spending the money.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

More like their friends own the building and they own their friends' buildings and they're all doing each other a favor to keep commercial real estate from declining.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I know that's probably the right answer. But it's also... something-something... optics and feels, or something else in the headspace of those in charge?

Why? As tenants they're still paying for electricity, A/C, heat, insurance, security, and office staff. And all that gets replaced with a beefier VPN and Zoom/Teams/Slack subscription, which a lot of businesses already had back in 2019. So, paying the remainder of the lease and having everyone work from home would still save money. Plus, I bet it would be possible to pay a reduced amount up-front in order to break the lease (say 75% of the remaining months), just so the building owner could (potentially) rent the space to someone else and double-dip. The fact that this isn't the math everyone is doing, just plain stinks.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 2 points 15 hours ago

You're not thinking 1 quarter at a time.

[–] Septimaeus 1 points 18 hours ago

Surely it must be one or the other.