As some business leaders accept hybrid work as a permanent reality, others are backtracking on earlier pledges to let employees work from home.
80% of bosses say they regret earlier return-to-office plans: ‘A lot of executives have egg on their faces’::As some business leaders accept hybrid work as a permanent reality, others are backtracking on earlier pledges to let employees work from home.
Those assholes should have never pushed the shit in the first place. Giving people the freedom to work from home and still live their life at the same time, then trying to snatch it away and force a return to the office, is clearly going to cause some serious push back. But these fucks were more worried about justifying their expensive office leases, than actually listening to and respecting their employees. A lot of those shit companies got what they deserved, empty offices, weakened workforce, and less overall productivity. Good job assholes.
Working from home is a benefit that is worth money. People are willing to get paid less for the benefit of working from home all else equal. Effectively, if you got to work from home, you got a raise. Forcing people to come back to the office after allowing working from home is like giving a raise and then taking it back. I agree that this is shitty and sucks.
However, when you negotiated your pay it was for a particular job with certain benefits. Complaining about your company not giving you a benefit that wasn't initially part of your hiring negotiation is basically asking for a raise that they aren't obligated to provide.
Edit: I guess this isn't a popular opinion. I felt I was contributing to a conversation that seemed a little one sided by offering an alternative look at it. From an economic perspective there's nothing wrong about what I've said. I don't agree that it's a nice or even ethical thing to do, but the backlash (against companies that push for RTO) seems overly dramatic to me.
They weren't obligated to provide it, no. The local Taco Bell never did (essential).
But once given (out of necessity), it becomes baseline. It is now the basis of comparison and part of the competition for talent. As many CEOs are finding out.
"We believe that a structured hybrid approach — meaning employees that live near an office need to be onsite two days a week to interact with their teams — is most effective for Zoom"
If only there was some kind of chat/video conferencing software you could use to collaborate with your team anytime you wanted...
I think it depends on it is implemented company-wide.
I'm fortunate enough that my company lets us choose whether we're full-remote, hybrid or on-site.
I think that's the best way to implement this, since it's the worker's decision on how they want to work.
I think that the only major difference is that hybrid workers that are on-site most of the week have a designated desk and chair like the always on-site workers.
The full-remotes have to book one of the several rotating desks that we have if they want to come to the office.
I've had a department head who thrived on low morale. People mostly unhappy, yet the she always got what she wanted, be it overtime or information on the state of things 'under the table'. Also very good at misdirection, since she always had a mad dog under her command that people could freely hate. If you were good at what you did, you got it a bit better than the 'plebs' but it was a very high stress work environment that took quite a toll on my mental health. Getting a raise was the best thing ever.
Being privy to how the 'plebs' were considered and participating in meetings where you'd basically reallocate people to projects like pieces of meat was a very interesting experience. Cultivation of individuality and 'fuck you, got mine' attitude.
It's an... interesting... management style. Not for the faint-hearted but for sure a good experience to have at least as a baseline.
Someone should create it, they would be millionaires, think of all the money these guys are missing out on. Some of these bosses should bring their teams into the office and get right to it.
So by that logic, living near the office means you are more effective in the office than at home. That is so clearly bullshit it doesn't even need taking apart.
80% of bosses regret their initial return-to-office decisions and say they would have approached their plans differently if they had a better understanding of employees’ office attendance, their usage of office amenities and other related factors
In other words, if they'd tried, even just a little, to actually do their jobs.
In response, EY announced a fund in February 2022 to reimburse up to $800 per year for commuting, pet care and dependent care costs for each of its 55,000-plus U.S. employees.
Sorry... a < .5% raise isn't enough to get me back in an office.
800 per year? My god what are these execs paying their nannies that they think this is anything substantial for such a massive sacrifice of time and energy to be in an office.
I've never really accepted the theory that return to office pushes are driven by office maintenance costs, or whatever. Hell, those expenses go UP when everyone is back. Working from home takes away electrical usage, and mitigates janitorial demand. If productivity is up or equal, and building maintenance costs are down, then wtf is it really about?
A lot of companies are stuck in long term leases so they're paying rent whether the buildings are being used or not. When out of touch upper management sees cubicles laying fallow they get pissed
That's still weird though. You could still generate more savings from the utilities costs if you don't have your people return to work. The company I worked for actually reduced office space because of the savings.
Imagine what would happen if a bunch of huge fully-remote companies with no office space were told by the government that they now had to buy a building for workers to work in.
I'm surprised people in this comments section aren't aware of the real estate mob. It's the oligarchy who are pushing for return to offices. They have valuable investments in both big companies and the real estate, and they don't want to see the values of their assets going down.
Somebody posted about this on lemmy a week or so ago. I'll see if I can find it.
I just don't get it. That money has already been spent or guaranteed for the current leases. It's a sunk cost either way. If they end up not needing it that office space then, once those leases are up, that become a cost saving and improve the bottom line of corporate profits right?
Only thing I can think of is that a a considerable percentage of upper management are getting kick backs by property owners who can see what WFH policies mean to their business model, or there are a lot of managers that don't know how to evaluate employee performance based on their deliverables.
It's about ego. The boss doesn't know how to make the company perform better, they're all out of ideas. They have to change something to make it look like they're doing something, so RTO is the low hanging fruit.
There's really no more justification needed than that. Looking at practical benefits to explain RTO pushes won't get you answers because the practical benefits are so slim and conditional relative to the strain it creates.
It's all about ego. They self-identity as the hardcore alpha boss that deserves high pay because they "earn" it. So to massage that ego, they go into the office even though they dont need to, and are meeting with nobody there. It's pointless but it feeds their ego.
So they feel alone at the office...and in that worldview they are hardworking (an assumed condition), and nobody else is there, therefore everyone else is not hardworking (regardless of how much work they're actually doing).
I have never heard the expression and am now wondering if the executives faces are covered in raw egg? Is it scrambled? Sunny side up? The German doesn't know.
Yes this "meme" predates the Internet by just a tad.
With egg on one’s face means means appearing ridiculous or foolish because of one’s actions. The phrase with egg on one’s face is an American idiom, though the origins are murky. One possible source goes back to popular theater during the 1800s and early 1900s.