this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
1386 points (99.2% liked)

World News

32075 readers
943 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] CubitOom@infosec.pub 141 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Honestly. It's about more than money.

If your boss says you must return to the office, after 3 years of WFH. At best, it shows that they do not value or respect you, and are just making an arbitrary decision in a bid to sell more stocks.

At worst, there might be some insidious reason to make employees physically available. Maybe they are getting a kickback somehow, or selling data that they can only get when you are there, or maybe they are just horny and want to seduce you sexually.

A remote worker is often happier, more productive, and cost less to employ even if they are paid the same as an on-site worker. Offices do not have to provide parking, seating, HVAC, power, wifi, and will even have less physical security vectors.

If some people prefer to go into an office, then it should be optional. Not a hybrid model where they force you to come a certain number of days a week.

At the end of the day unless you are on some kind of probation or evaluation period WFH should be the default when ever possible.

[โ€“] PixelPlumber@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I agree with almost everything hog say, and strongly think WFH is the future and worth the costs.

But I think physical security concerns are a fair one for some companies to hold for WFH, if they handle sensitive data where leaking is a concern.

load more comments (9 replies)