Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Living-blech t1_je2lz9k wrote

Reply to comment by Maximum-Carpet2740 in I Would Love to Have Enough Time and Money to Go to an Office to Work All Day - Perhaps Steven Rattner and the executives complaining to him about their remote employees could lend me a hand (or $50,000 more a year). by speckz

Part of why people are disagreeing with you is exactly because of the last statement. You're looking at a cooperate/service industry (little hands on in the actual service part, and most can be done from a terminal accessed from anywhere) from the eyes of someone in the construction industry (a VERY hands-on industry where you need to be at the site to do the work).

The problem is that the cooperate policy is so lenient, so people have less incentive to do work constantly. If it were less lenient, you'd have the less lazy people doing their jobs and the lazy ones out of a job. That being said, expecting constant results is unfair in an industry where many customers fail to see you as human, making the job even harder.

7

Maximum-Carpet2740 t1_je2ojr0 wrote

I don’t care that people are downvoting me to oblivion because I don’t care about the karma counter, and my comment was made in jest.

Outside of workers possibly being more easily distracted at home, we have research from the pandemic that WFH is really good for the relationship of your in group, (your individual team) but is bad for the interdependent relationships between different departments and how all the sectors of the organization interact. Essentially individual team cohesion goes way up, but out group connections and collaboration suffer massively because you are no longer interacting with or forging relationships with people who work in different departments and on different teams etc. in your day to day. It also makes your job a lot less secure. I think hybrid is a good compromise personally.

−11