this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
682 points (97.8% liked)

Work Reform

13215 readers
212 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 173 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I agree with the article that real estate is at the core of the issue. Always follow the money.

However, I also think some mid-level supervisor types get off on the power trip of making subordinates do things they don't want to do, such as wasting several hours a week commuting and polluting between home and office.

And of course you'll always have the suckups who want to score points by acting so eager to show up in person. They are the reason it's so hard to unify and fight these measures in many shops.

I'm not talking about people who have a genuine preference for working in the office. There are many legitimate reasons to have such a preference. I'm talking about psychos who want to force everyone to do it when it's not necessary, and don't support telecommuting as a legitimate way to work.

[–] Larvitar@kbin.social 46 points 2 years ago (1 children)

From what I've seen, every push to have everyone return to the office has either been that they just want control over employees or they want butts in seats because the seats aren't free. It's never been about productivity as folks that work from home normally are always happy to drive in to the office if they have to. What's the different if they drive in during morning rush hour traffic vs at lunch time when they only have to physically be in the office for a few hours.

I think a large part of the push for return to work is definitely the control of employees when management actively selects for people who are sociopaths.

[–] Kichae@kbin.social 25 points 2 years ago (1 children)

From what I've seen, every push to have everyone return to the office has either been that they just want control over employees or they want butts in seats because the seats aren't free.

Yes, exactly.

Everyone keeps pointing to the real estate issue, but the simple fact of the matter is that most office-based employers don't own any commercial real estate. It's a great theory as to why the media has been promoting back-to-office stories, but it doesn't explain why employers are actually doing it.

Raw, unmitigated distrust of and disrespect for employees, though...

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Also it looks good for client-facing businesses. Clients like it better when they can see the peons that will be working for them - a lot of them don't like to accept "well our employees have lives and it's better and easier for us to simply have them WFH rather than maintaining a huge office space for the sole reason of having an office."

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago

Don't forget the industrial revolution attitude that you have to watch your employees like hawks so they don't "steal" from the company by slacking off. Even if they have to schedule constant pointless meetings that accomplish zero work while looking like work, just so they can keep an eye on their wage-slaves while making themselves appear productive. Control freaks, social bums, ladder climbers, and tin pot tyrants aren't the only middle manager subspecies.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So I'm gonna add something here... It annoys me that managers can't form or be part of a union. Far too often low and mid level managers and supervisors get shit on just as much and have to parrot the company line coming from the higher ups that are trying to push it. I wish they could be better empowered too.

[–] tastysnacks@programming.dev 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why can't they be? I know management that's part of a trade Union.

[–] Lilium@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago

I believe any position that can hire and/or especially fire employees is barred from union participation.

[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 82 points 2 years ago (2 children)

One thing about productivity- businesses will do things for productivity’s sake- but not to shorten working hours, rather to eliminate staff or have existing staff do more work. I probably do the work of 10 people 30 years ago- more is expected of people because tools let you do more.

This isnt a pro work speech- im just saying that any productivity gains benefit the business not the employee.

[–] Unaware7013@kbin.social 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This isnt a pro work speech- im just saying that any productivity gains benefit the business not the employee.

I've had very good luck in the last few years of intentionally sandbagging my work output to make sure I don't get additional work hucked on me if I can avoid it. I still have decent output based on feedback from my peers and management, but I know for a fact that I'm only working like half as hard as I could at work.

[–] Im_old@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago

If they don't pay you as much as they could you shouldn't work as hard as you could.

Also, if I worked as hard as I could every day I'll probably burn out pretty quickly.

[–] MrSilkworm@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

I think we as workers lack imagination through negotiation.

It would be interesting to experiment. Next time unions discuss raises they should suggest ex. instead of a 5% raise, a 5% reduction in working hours for the same pay which is the same outcome productivity wise.

It would be very interesting to examine the initial reactions to the suggestion.

[–] PierrAlex@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 24 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Liberals allergic to marxist terminology.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 years ago

I always thought our plutocrat elite were a higher order of bourgeoisie. Like bourbourbourbourgeosie. Super boogie bourgeosie.

[–] knobbysideup@lemm.ee 33 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I wish people would stop calling them elite. WTF are they so elite at? Born into a corporate family? Being a psychopath?

[–] MostlyBirds@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Having effectively unlimited resources and the unbreakable power and control over the rest of us that comes with it sounds pretty elite to me.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The terminology still engrandises them instead of shaming them as the greedy pr*cks they are.

[–] steakmeout@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Aggrandises. Engrandise isn't a word.

And calling them elites is fine. For them it massages their collective ego for us it is a mocking statement.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sarcastic and ironic comments are fine until they're not.

Most people don't pick up on sarcasm about "elite", though, and only stupid people insist on communicating with things easily misunderstood.

Poe's Law offers more wisdom than most people realize.

[–] steakmeout@aussie.zone -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You see the problem here though right? You're assuming limited capacity in others to acknowledge the world as itb really is and yet you can't even acknowledge that you used a made up word to convey an idea.

What makes you think you're smarter than the average person?

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

All words are made up. What makes you think pointing out something related to the language I use could possibly ever dismiss the logical point I made about how that language is interpreted?

YOU are the one using a word to mean something that most people do not think of when they hear that word. You are the one failing to understand the concept of communication.

[–] steakmeout@aussie.zone -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's an entirely specious argument. You used a word that doesn't exist. Not because you're style grand explorer, making your way through culture by experimenting with language but because instead you're a pseudointellectual.

Wanker.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How about you attack my point instead of being a petulant little prick upset at someone smarter than you?

[–] steakmeout@aussie.zone -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Your point was attacked only you're so egotistical that it doesn't register. And you're not smart, let alone smarter than me.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Keep telling yourself that, bud. It won't make you right.

[–] TwoGems@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

They do think of themselves this way though. It's fact that many billionaires want to buy an island to make genetically "superior" children at. Even Jeffrey Epstein wanted to.

What's hilarious is the idea that somehow their genes are superior to everyone else's:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I don't buy this narrative. While it may very well be true that real estate is going down and ruining some companies and people, which makes me very happy, I doubt this is the reason why companies are pushing people to office.

IMO they're simply dumb controle freaks. When people are at the office, they can push their propaganda of corporate culture in the hope that some workers will buy it a become some kind of ambassador for their twisted model.

There probably is also the same stupid generalisation that made open space a generality: some idiot with way too much power prefered to work this way, and thus he assumed everyone would. It was turned into company policy, and because this company earned some money this year it turned into a fashion for all companies.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think it's a combination of both.

[–] gummybootpiloot@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I do see a lot of articles targeted at ceo's on LinkedIn by real estate/office. So there is definitely a degree to it.

Micromanagement is also a factor here however a company can also install monitoring software on your laptop by company policy like mine did.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They can't do that without unions allowing it in France, and unions are not ready to allow it yet. Articles are good evidences though for loans.

[–] gummybootpiloot@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Yeah France did great there, saldy no such luck in the UK and low union membership in tech

[–] new_acct_who_dis@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I didn't think about the "ambassador" angle. It probably is harder to get employees to drink the company koolaid when they're not physically in the office.

[–] Saneless@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They probably have some tax breaks specifically around buildings and people in them

[–] Staccato@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Tax breaks? Most companies are paying leases on their office space, minus the ones big enough to build their own campuses.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] theodewere@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago

cruelty and domination.. it really is fascism..

[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 15 points 2 years ago

The real estate thing is definitely one of the major reasons. But there's more to it than that. Managers become managers because they're good at power games, not because they're competent. Those games become much harder or even impossible when people aren't physically present. Many of them also enjoy bullying people. That's also harder to do on a video call.

[–] satanmat@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

As others in the thread are pointing out; follow the money — that’s always a good starting point.

So yes real estate

Also the old management ideas of if I can’t see you I can’t track what you are doing… I know how damn lucky I am that my boss mostly trusts that those 40 emails are indicating that stuff is happening even if he can’t see me

And just as importantly the stock price. If employee pay rose to match productivity we’d be golden. Alas your pay doesn’t, most likely, as so company’s profits rise making the stock market happy. Boosting the stock prices

The remote working issue isn’t one thing alone, but yes real estate is a good starting point

[–] doomer@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

The elite are trying to whip everyone back to the office to avoid a commercial real estate crash.

Yes, but I'm surprised the author doesn't even mention CMBSs.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

There are bored with profit. Now it is about abusing people to prove they have power

[–] Clbull@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Companies that embrace remote working will thrive in the next decade by taking all the talent.