Bosses mean it this time: Return to the office or get a new job! — As office occupancy rates stagnate, employers are giving up on perks and turning to threats::undefined

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      94
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, companies that are sticking to optional office attendance are going to snap up the best employees. Look for innovation coming from them.

  • const_void@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Give me a good reason and I’ll come back to the office. None of this “it’s more productive” bullshit. We know that one is a lie. I’m also not wasting my time commuting to an office just to support the local McDonald’s, gas stations, etc.

    • Random_Character_A@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Your company CEOs golf buddies from the real estate business are complaining that they are losing money because rental office space value is dropping. It’s the only reason.

      At some point they’ll cook up some funded research to show that remote working is detrimental in various ways and soon the 1% will demand the end of remote working, due to looming economic Armageddon. However bs science takes time.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your company CEOs golf buddies from the real estate business are complaining that they are losing money because rental office space value is dropping. It’s the only reason.

        That’s a cynical view thinking that’s the only reason. /s

        Another reason may be that the company received generous tax breaks from the municipality or state to have workers working in a specific place, and now all those workers are spread out to different cities, counties, or even states, the tax man is getting angry and threatening to take the company pay up. So bosses are forcing workers back into office even though it is more costly to workers and makes them less productive.

        • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah I heard a city mayor on NPR the other day talking about ways to get people back downtown to support businesses. They need to just stop already. That’s not leadership. If people don’t want to be downtown give them a good reason. Build housing and grocery stores or something. Don’t Force people to commute.

          • 8ender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Forcing a huge portion of the population to move to a particular area every day and then vacate it is becoming outdated, and it caused a shitload of problems anyways. Time to move on to more decentralized urban planning.

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They have a very good reason: control.

      They have another good reason: AI monitoring such as WADU

      Sure they can turn your remote camera on and snap pictures if you’re remote but what if it’s covered? Even if the cam is working fine they don’t get cameras catching you in and out of bathrooms, break rooms, etc. THAT is why they need us in office

    • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Gasp!

      Now what will head management do when they want to give random people tours of their company! Think of all the empty desk spaces potential investors might see! (That’s one thing I’ll be happy to see hopefully end eventually. The people giving the tours where I work barely know anything about any of the processes or procedures. )

      On a serious note, even from the capitalism mindset, this doesn’t make a lot of sense. Even if they already paid out a lease for their building, they would still be saving on regular maintenance costs, and they would have a good reason to downsize their physical location when possible. (Saving money, long term). Fewer employees being at work may also mean fewer workplace injuries. (Saving money, long term).

    • MrBusinessMan@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because we know that when you’re working from home you’re just playing TikTok and eating cheese puffs for half the day. When you’re in the office the manager can help you stay focused and get more work done. Plus, you don’t have the same kind of camaraderie and team spirit over a zoom call. I used to go into the office at my business several times a month just to tell my employees how much I appreciate them with a hearty pat on the back. Now that they aren’t there, how can I even do that? Send a back-patting emoji to them on zoom?

      • MaXsteri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can tell your employees you appreciate them with words, and show them with actions. You don’t need to touch someone to communicate you appreciate them, and frankly it’s best not to go around touching people in the workplace.

  • Rooty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    At this point businesses have two options:

    • Bite the bullet, terminate lease agreements and pay the fines associated, then advertise yourself as a full remote company and attract global talent.
    • Be penny wise and pound foolish, stomp your feet, slowly hemmorage the best employees until you’re left with people whose only talent is playing office politics.

    We’ll see how this plays out in the long run, it wouldn’t be out of character for the owner class to start needling their pet politicians to devalue currency even more to put those pesky workers in their place.

    • imperator3733@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is another option:

      • Downsize the office to better fit with the number of people who do actually want to be in the office, either full or part time, and don’t cause a huge ruckus about people who prefer to work remotely.

      At my job, most people are in the office 2-3 days a week, but there are a few who are there nearly every day. We also have some people who are remote/WFH, including a few who are remote even though they live very near by.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      owner class to start needling their pet politicians to devalue currency

      Literally no capital investment firm would ever do that. This severely weakens their positions for growth via M&A and limits their ability to globalize trade.

    • Subverb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      69
      ·
      1 year ago

      Says a person that doesn’t know the difference between “you’re” and “your”. Not very persuasive.

      • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Says a person that doesn’t know the difference between “you’re” and “your”. Not very persuasive.

        My brother in Christ, there is a way to correct someone’s syntax. This is not the way.

        • samus12345@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The first sentence is also a sentence fragment and the period should be placed before the ending quotation marks.

          • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Does the period in quotation mark rule applies to quotes? I don’t think it does, but this stuff always confuses me.

            • samus12345@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It actually might be correct they way they did it since they were quoting a word rather than a complete sentence. It is indeed confusing. I figured if I were wrong, someone might correct me and I’d learn something.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          “not very persuasive” is not a sentence fragment. Sentences need a subject, verb, and a complete thought.

          “Don’t do that” has an implied subject of (you). “Not very persuasive” shares the same type implied subject and is a complete sentence.

          Bonus fun fact, the shortest complete sentence in the English language is “I am” but not “I’m” because contractions are inherently dependent.

          https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-an-implied-subject#:~:text=Implied subjects occur when a,the subject is not mentioned.

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            “Don’t do that” is a correct imperative sentence, which as your link says does not have a subject. “Not very persuasive” is not imperative and is indeed a sentence fragment.

  • expected_crayon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s funny how at least American employers act like we’re not at full employment. While the market isn’t as good for employees as it was about a year ago, the employees still have more leverage than the employers.

    • EvilBit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not quite that simple. The job market is pretty wonky right now. Around 180,000 tech workers got laid off at the beginning of the year (including myself) and even in high-level somewhat niche roles, I see job postings that have 300-1200 applicants.

      • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        We posted for a support team member. Got over 200 applications. Many were programmers. Some quite senior. This is in Australia.

        • EvilBit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          From certain perspectives it’s very hard to feel like it’s a job-seeker’s market. Programmers clamoring for a support role is a sign of people desperate to get a paycheck.

          • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Indeed. The position went to the most appropriately qualified for the job (great people skills, self managed, loves writing, good phone manner, etc). The overqualified / differently qualified (programmers for example) didn’t get a look in.

            • EvilBit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              As it should be. But I feel bad for people who are forced to jeopardize their career to keep food on the table. The tech industry has some serious problems right now with the massive stock buybacks and executive salaries at the same time as layoff after layoff is happening. It’s all optimized for short-term stockholder value but not establishing a stable and cohesive workforce.

        • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s crazy. We can almost never fill our support positions. Granted, the pay is nowhere near development salaries, so why would decent devs lower themselves to support roles?

          Source: been in support for almost a decade, not good enough to be an actual dev

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        With all those laid off people searching at the same time it’s also very hard for anyone with pretty much zero work experience on their resume trying to break into the workforce.

        • EvilBit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          100%. A ton of people are being forced to downvalue their experience just to start getting a paycheck again. It’s gotta be brutal for the entry-level set.

          • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just wait, in about 10 to 20 years, people will be complaining that not enough young people are doing those jobs anymore. (Some people already are to an extent, lol. They probably have no idea about this though.)

            What a horrible situation. I hope that everyone is able to find sustainable work. I can’t imagine suddenly losing most of my salary while being left with the same bills.

            • EvilBit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Sorry kids, not enough bootstraps to go around.*

              * this will not excuse you from being held accountable for your station

            • OldQWERTYbastard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’ll go ahead and tell you. It’s absolutely terrifying. Especially when you have a mortgage. I was laid off on July 5th and took an entry level tech job just to pay the bills. I try not to think about the 49% pay cut and I’m just glad my wife and I don’t have kids.

  • EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    1 year ago

    For such “genius” “business leaders” they sure can’t understand the concept of supply and demand

    They just want to make people they view as lesser than them suffer.

    Suffer on the way to work, suffer finding a parking spot, suffer getting into the building, suffer working, suffer getting out of the building, suffer getting back to the car, suffer on the way home

    Over and over your asshole bosses are getting off on your suffering

    • Rambi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well yeah, but also I think it’s just that the same people who own these businesses that people work for, and the friends and family of those people, also own lots of property much of which is office space which they don’t want to lose money. That and all of the businesses (e.g. Starbucks) and the property they’re in that partially make money from people on their way to work. And if you want to go even deeper, if people are WFM then they may not have to eat out as often, might not need to pay for a lot of things as often if they have more time.

      So much money can be lost and rich people all know each other and have class consciousness, I think that’s why we’re seeing so much anti-WFM propaganda

      • primal_buddhist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is the key, and it cuts in different ways and needs planning strategy.

        If we don’t go into town, then the businesses associated with going to work in town are in trouble, so coffee, lunch, snack, may as well get a book, after work drinks and then late food. All have less customers. Some of whom are themselves!

        So a spiral of decline, less retail jobs in town, less secondary and tertiary employment “in town”.

        Theoretically we can now spend some of that money locally IF the local has the supply and this is where political strategy is needed to replan where we sleep as always where we spend our casual cash. And in many cases these dormitories are not well planned for that.

        So unfortunately we need to wait out this next phase of resistance in order to build political consensus for zoning and planning for more sustainable local hubs.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      I highly doubt the push is due to anything but the profitability of commercial real-estate, hospitality, probably councils etc, and a range of other businesses that benefit from millions of daily customers coming to their locales — all the businesses built around a high level of centralization, and refuse to adapt to the changing world.

      Micromanagement and extroverts who love the social routine are the minority being used to distract us from the scared capital.

    • johnthedoe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same. The only reason I took the role I’m in is for fully remote. If that’s gone I’m out. That being said I still go in once in a while just to get out of the house. I’ll try and go in more in the summer to save on turning on the aircon at home. If companies are reasonable so will employees.

  • plz1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d choose “fire me and I’ll collect unemployment instead of giving you a free out for finding my replacement without paying for my exit”.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 year ago

    return to office or get a new job

    I’ve chosen the latter twice and have been thrilled with the results every time

  • atx_aquarian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Headline seems weasel-wordy.

    Numerically vague expressions (for example, “some people”, “experts”, “many”, “evidence suggests”)

    I.e., are most bosses doing this? 50%? 20%?

  • cabron_offsets@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Feck off. Ill give the bastards 2 days in office, no more. I’ll sacrifice salary for personal time. As it stands, I’m considering applying for a 2nd full time remote job. And I’ll code away 90% of that work.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    Executives: But we have a 20 year lease on this enormous office building! You guys have to come back! Besides, we can’t breathe down your necks or waste 6 hours of your day (plus commute) if you’re at home actually being productive! Wait, why am I telling the truth? I never tell the truth. Not too my wife, my mistress, my kids, my parents, or the IRS, much less you parasites! Don’t you know how much more money I could have if I didn’t have to pay you ungrateful peasants?

    • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can tell you the headline the bossman will have in the coming months.

      No one wants to work anymore

      But, lets me honest, that’s basically the free square in bingo now.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        No one wants to work anymore

        We just don’t wanna work for people who don’t get it when so many other people do.

        Natural Selection.