worker: Gets new job
Employer: Shockedpikachu.jpg
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
433 points (96.2% liked)
Technology
59587 readers
2769 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, companies that are sticking to optional office attendance are going to snap up the best employees. Look for innovation coming from them.
This exactly.
A year or two back there was an article about companies trying to return to office- the CEO of some upstart engineering company had a quote like 'every time one of our competitors announces return to office we kick our recruitment into overdrive. We get all the best people that way'.
The companies that push return to office aren't going to keep their most productive and intelligent workers. They're going to keep the ones who can't find anything better.
It's really kind of funny... this is a combination of short-sighted management who think that being able to physically see their employees working somehow makes them more productive, and real estate- lot of dollars invested in commercial real estate and CEOs don't want to admit their flashy new HQ in Silicon Valley was wasted money.
This is why big business and the government want a “mild” recession so badly…unemployment is below 4% right now so employees have the upper hand in a lot of things (wages, union negotiations, working from home). Push the unemployment back to 8% or so and big business is hoping the workers lose most of their leverage on these issues.
I wish I could say you're wrong and that's tinfoil hat paranoid... but sadly maybe not.
Right now there's a resurgence of the workers rights and unionization movement, and low unemployment helps push that. Businesses need their employees more than the employees need their employers and the smart employers are skimming the cream of the crop.
I don't think federal government gives a crap but local governments in business districts are pushing return to office as hard as everyone. They see their (way overvalued) commercial office districts sitting empty, and every worker that doesn't commute is a worker not riding the metro / buying Starbucks / buying a paper / otherwise stimulating the downtown economy.
Smarter cities are starting to realize that their downtown property values are a fucking bubble that is not sustainable, and they're exploring turning office space into desperately needed apartments. But that takes time and isn't easy and it involves hosing a lot of commercial real estate developers and their investors who invested on absurd property values.
Fact is though- real estate (especially in downtown districts) is a bubble that's long due to be popped. There's no valid reasons humans have to cluster together like that, the country's more than big enough to spread people out and not have people paying through the nose for shitty apartments.
Regarding the unionizing, for me, a big push towards it was seeing what's happening in many companies without one. A good union can help in so many ways. I've seen the writing on the wall with some situations that have happened over the last 5 to 10 years. Bad companies are trying to remove a lot of worker protections, and it feels like we really need to remind them that they aren't invulnerable.
My union for example, has some of the best employment lawyers in the country, and we don't have to pay on the spot if we need one. Previously, fighting a wrongful dismissal over unsafe working conditions would have taken time and money that many of us don't have. Now, we know we won't be screwed.
I would argue that a good company should want a union. They protect and guide both "sides", and if they're doing everything right, a union really shouldn't be a hassle for a company to deal with.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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
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).
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
My partner's employer recently tried this. He works for a mental health agency. That mental health agency has issues with compensation, recruiting, and retention. Yet the CEO insisted that everyone come back, despite the fact that productivity has improved with remote work. In fact, a lot of their patients prefer telehealth.
"Take a title demotion, come back into the office, or quit. Pick one."
The mass exodus has been astounding. There's no chance they'll be able to fill in the gaps left by senior clinicians. Demand for psychologists is sky high right now, and just about every other employer pays more and allows telework.
The patients will be the real victims of this attempt at a "power play."
"Take a title demotion, come back into the office, or quit. Pick one."
"No, I think I'll keep working from home until you fire me despite you dramatically altering my working requirements."
They just disabled my VPN access and demanded I come back to the office. I had to quit at that point. I suppose they could've fired me for job abandonment eventually, though.
I had to quit at that point. I suppose they could’ve fired me for job abandonment eventually, though.
No, you were constructively dismissed at that point. Their choice, not yours. File for unemployment.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
We posted for a support team member. Got over 200 applications. Many were programmers. Some quite senior. This is in Australia.
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
load more comments
(15 replies)
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
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
load more comments
(5 replies)
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".
This is the answer- especially if the job description explicitly states remote work. It's a significant shift in job requirements. That can count as constructive dismissal.
return to office or get a new job
I've chosen the latter twice and have been thrilled with the results every time
load more comments
(4 replies)
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.
Headline seems weasel-wordy.
Numerically vague expressions (for example, "some people", "experts", "many", "evidence suggests")
I.e., are most bosses doing this? 50%? 20%?
Do that and I’ll find another one just to spite you.
Bold strategy cotton let's see how it plays out for them.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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?
load more comments
(1 replies)
“The pendulum has shifted from employees having all the power,” wow how could that have possibly happened
Is anyone actually living this out there or is this all just bullshit?
My old boss started pushing RTO heavy. He was already a stereotypical failure of a manager, doling out useless kudos when we want.fucking.training.budget.keith, and chasing that sales-dick limelight all the time.
He's not my boss anymore. On a day off I came in, dropped off my shit, lobbed a note into my file in HR, and peaced out.
My new company gave me one extra week of holiday but my pay cut was 3% for the first year. 100% WFH and it's in the union agreement. Can't work from outside the country in case it's secret-squirrel (data sovereignty).
Near V5H postal.
load more comments
(7 replies)
And they'll win, eventually. They'll take the L, replace employees over time and suffer for it but in the end they will win and we'll all be back in office
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›