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

Asklemmy

43746 readers
1392 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 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] el_bhm@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

1% wealth is not pure money. It is stock and real estate. Also shares.

To keep the value of their wealth the 99% needs to spend.

[–] ChirpingEmu@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Is retail near office buildings worth considering in the context of this post? That it’s worth having people return to the offices partially because the employees give business to the nearby restaurants, etc.?

[–] andallthat@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

This is true. I just had trouble picturing the CEO of a big company going "I'll force everyone back to the office! WFH is sooo convenient but I can't do this to Mr Joe's hamburger joint around the corner".

However as someone else pointed out, if WFH becomes the norm, a lot of business might be impacted and fail, generating turbulence in the economy. This I can picture getting a CEO's attention

[–] PersonalDevKit@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago

That's a side affect, but those retail stores could also move out to where the houses are with some legal changes.

It would be a nice suprise but I doubt corporate really cares about Jane and Joe's coffee shop, or the local Hugo Boss

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.astaluk.icu 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There are a whole slew of ways to look at this depending on what "glasses" you like to wear, and also the type of work involved. I work in grocery logistics, moving groceries from where they are produced to the store where you buy them. Here's a few from my "lens":

  • They are looking at the long term office space leases they are stuck with.
  • In person training tends to be more effective ( I remember reading a study on this, but can't currently find it.)
  • Most people suck at communicating effectively. Proximity seems to improve this. (Personal observation)
  • Community (It is far easier to "other" someone that you rarely or never meet in person. Not so easy if they are showing you pictures of their kids every day. "Sally just got a new particle accelerator! Isn't she so lovely! This is her sinking Manhattan!")
  • Leadership (I have to come into work to do my job. My boss's job though is mostly paperwork. He could do his job from home but why should I care what he has to say if he isn't in the same mud as me?)

My thought on this is if you want the flexibility of working from home, that's fine. But don't expect me to give a damn about what you think. The job is rough enough without an uninformed opinion trying to mess things up worse.

People showing pictures of their crotch goblins every day would be a excellent reason to embrace work from home.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TAG@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

In office communication is much more efficient. It is easier to understand (and pay attention to) people in the same room as you than it is to understand people on a call (especially since most people don't have a great microphone and Internet and LAN quality can vary). Some employers have adopted a policy of grouping meetings to designated meeting days and encouraging employees to come in on those.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

You guys are still doing homeoffice? I've been back for over a year.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] kitonthenet@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Power hungry middle managers mainly

[–] TerabyteRex@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago
  1. The companoes are locked into commercial real estate

2 ) Working at home is making the middle manager obsolete. I think google's ceo said that he didn't know how to promote managers he cant see. I personally think mamagement is corporate welfare.

[–] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

There's a thing that cult leaders often do where they make increasingly stricter demands on their followers, it reduces the number of members, but the one who remain are much more easily controlled (because they self selected for that trait. I think something similar is part of the picture for these companies. The people who simply do as they are told and come back (as opposed to looking for new jobs) are more easily controlled by the company.

Also you can't always assume that just because a company is really big it's always making the most best, always correct choices. Like GE managed with "vitality curves."

[–] 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.

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