Work Reform

9798 readers

409 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.

Our Goals

Higher wages for underpaid workers.
Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
Better and fewer working hours.
Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1118

Almost all remote-work news is negative now but was positive in the beginning of the pandemic. Have you noticed this or am I going crazy? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

169 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Earlier in the pandemic many news and magazine organizations would proudly write about how working from home always actually can lead to over working and being too "productive". I am yet to collect some evidence on it but I think we remember a good amount about this.

Now after a bunch of companies want their remote workers back at the office, every one of those companies are being almost propaganda machines which do not cite sound scientific studies but cite each other and interviews with higher ups in top companies that "remote workers are less productive". This is further cementing the general public's opinion on this matter.

And research that shows the opposite is buried deep within any search results.

Have you noticed this? Please share what you have observed. I'm going paranoid about this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Don't companies use the threat of removing WFH as a means of getting employees to "quiet quit"?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But isn't 'quiet quitting' the act of the employee giving the bare minimum needed to achieve a paycheck? It sounds like you're talking about getting employees to flat-out quit so the company doesn't need to pay benefits that come with being fired.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

The concept of quiet quitting always struck me as bullshit in general. Like if your employees can do that, if they're able to just sort of log in and barely do anything, then they should. That's the manager's fault and responsibility to keep employees engaged or demand more from them. If the minimum amount of work isn't enough for the manager, then it isn't really the minimum, right?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

Quiet quit is something else.

But I know what you're saying. For example twitter needed people to quit without being fired (due to how unemployment works in the US) and so it said no more WFH (without warning).

I suspect a lot of other companies are doing the same thing.