• @RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    462 years ago

    I don’t get it. Companies want to make money. Study after study proves that WFH generates greater productivity on average and, therefore, more output and more money. Surely, it must be costing more to maintain massive office buildings and overpay useless middle managers to lord over employees?

    • RickRussell_CA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      272 years ago

      But… CONTROL… How do we know they’re working? How do we know they’re working FOR US?

        • RickRussell_CA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          I work in a role that was something like 80% travel before the pandemic. Now it’s 0% travel. The company could not be happier; we’re able to offer more competitive services at lower prices than ever before, employees are happier, and our customers really couldn’t care less whether we meet them on site.

    • @dmonzel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      192 years ago

      They’re still paying to rent/lease, and to maintain the empty office buildings. They’re trying to get their money’s worth, even if it ends up costing them in the long run.

      • @krayj@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 years ago

        They can’t be dumb enough to fall for the sunk cost fallacy can they? I think it must be something else.

      • @donut4ever@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        My company just sold about 90% of their buildings. Then consolidated whoever left that likes to work in office (I don’t know why anyone would lol) in one building. They’re still only occupying 8% of that one building.

        • Jaysyn
          link
          fedilink
          -12 years ago

          My company is letting our lease expire & getting a smaller place for equipment.

    • @Pika@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 years ago

      being devils advocate here, they probably are blinded by the reports of workers who are inefficient at remote work. I want remote work as much as the next guy, I am deeply passionate for it; but I can see why management teams would want inhouse. Easier to monitor and punish mentor the under-performers if you are physically present in the building. The higher ups don’t generally care about stats, they only care about what issues are being brought to their plate/causing more work for them… and the underperforming workers are a pretty big additional work for them.

    • BarqsHasBite
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 years ago

      And if your employees live in a lower COL area, you can literally pay them less.

  • Aldursil
    link
    fedilink
    English
    52 years ago

    “We want to foster a collaborative work environment.”

    /s

  • trainsaresexy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    52 years ago

    I just read “Remote: Office Not Required (2013)” and I’d recommend it for anyone who is having these talks at work. It’s a quick read and I found my copy at the library. We have to advocate for your interests. I will take an in person meeting over a video call any day of the week, but that in no way means that you can’t get the same work done virtually as you can in person and it is significantly less pleasant spending life in an office than having to do a video call zero or more times a day.

    It is clear that remote work works just fine. I think the problem runs deeper than productivity or social needs and is more about some unknown insecurities and values that workers and managers have about work. Traditionally work is something that happens above all else. We orchestrate our lives around work. Remote work changes this and that’s a huge deal. IMO that’s why it’s hard to debate this topic using facts around productivity or mental health or even company success, because it’s a philosophical debate about how we live.