Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What do you mean I have to GO to work?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What do you mean I have to GO to work?

    The next 9 months should be rather interesting.
    Return to Work orders will begin going out. Quite honestly, I think this might be more disruptive than anticipated. A few companies will embrace the remote work from home options. The decision will be only based on huge economic benefits.
    Most companies will attempt to navigate this but will go back to requiring work IN the office.

    The convenience of working from home was a huge unintended employee benefit for many.
    The question is how much resistance and disruption will occur. If the teachers union is a predictor, it might be significant. When I see something like 60 some percent might seek new jobs, that is a lot of disruption.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/27/tens...ain-steam.html

    I see businesses reclaiming power any way possible. Having to GO to work will create a period of job dissatisfaction that will ripple through to home life.

    Employer/employee relations are in for a rough patch. Why? Employees have to GO to work.
    Can you GO to work? That would be great.
    https://youtu.be/jsLUidiYm0w

    Employers crave power.

    The question is to what extent and will this pass through in 6 months or so ?
    Or will “working from home” start a change and different values? I can see both sides.




  • #2
    Even for those of us who already have to go to work, I’m not looking forward to the increase in traffic.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Dusn View Post
      Even for those of us who already have to go to work, I’m not looking forward to the increase in traffic.
      Another unintended benefit of the “stay at home” declarations. I noted the 45 minute commute anecdote in the article. Some days that could be 1hr 15 minutes. Homes have been selling. A new normal.

      Comment


      • #4
        I've loved wfh. I've had to go into the office once a week during the pandemic but I'm hoping to only increase that to twice a week as we move forward. We shall see. . . I know it could save businesses a lot of money in real estate and travel costs. At the same time I know a lot of people are dying to get back to the office. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Hopefully it will at least give everyone more flexibility.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Tim View Post

          Another unintended benefit of the “stay at home” declarations. I noted the 45 minute commute anecdote in the article. Some days that could be 1hr 15 minutes. Homes have been selling. A new normal.
          not to mention decreased pollution. After power plants, vehicles are the second biggest polluter in the world. We can all breath better.

          I've done WFH pre-COVID for years. Personality and work ethic are really what should determine who can WFH. Introverts and those who can do the job from home and also may be more productive from home (less time to gather around the water cooler to shoot the breeze) should be allowed to WFH. That's just better for business. Some people love it, others hate it and feel isolated.

          You should not assume that all businesses want their workers to come back to the office. Businesses can now realize they can pay less rent or less to buy an office building if some percentage of their workforce works from home and so the business needs fewer desks. A big retailer locally here had some ~20k workers who would go downtown every day. The company announced a couple of months ago that when things go back to normal, around 4-5K of their workers they determined can continue to WFH.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JBME View Post

            not to mention decreased pollution. After power plants, vehicles are the second biggest polluter in the world. We can all breath better.

            I've done WFH pre-COVID for years. Personality and work ethic are really what should determine who can WFH. Introverts and those who can do the job from home and also may be more productive from home (less time to gather around the water cooler to shoot the breeze) should be allowed to WFH. That's just better for business. Some people love it, others hate it and feel isolated.

            You should not assume that all businesses want their workers to come back to the office. Businesses can now realize they can pay less rent or less to buy an office building if some percentage of their workforce works from home and so the business needs fewer desks. A big retailer locally here had some ~20k workers who would go downtown every day. The company announced a couple of months ago that when things go back to normal, around 4-5K of their workers they determined can continue to WFH.
            There is definitely a cost/benefit calculation to be made. The reality is an ownership or long term lease commitment and availabilty of "cheap space" sways most decisions. Not making assumptions, but many factors go into a policy decision. Low on the priority list is the commute of employees if they are locked in. Some have built campuses for huge concentrations. From their mind, not going to walk away and leave it a fraction used if the only impact is employee desire to commute. From their standpoint, it will be employee retention and decisions made from the powers that be. I don't see office buildings becoming obsolete to accommodate employees desire not to GO to work. No assumptions, the pandemic did not change the office commitments. My point is the decision will not be up to the individual. After a year, employees will have a real adjustment going back to the commuting routine.

            Comment


            • #7
              I believe a bunch of the companies in Silicon Valley also have built up huge campuses for their employees. At the same time, these companies were perhaps better equipped than many others to support remote working when the pandemic hit, and I recall stories of many people moving out of the Bay Area to get away from traffic, not to mention perhaps taxes. Some moved out of state and they continue to work for those companies. I can't imagine those companies requiring 100% of their employees to come back to work. Would they rather lose all of the knowledge of those employees if they quit? I do think the article is off-base with people being quoted as we're going to fully go back to the way things were before.

              Perhaps I'm influenced by working from home for years many years prior to the pandemic, but with the internet age there's really no excuse to force 100% of people to come into work for all jobs. Not all jobs can be done from home for sure, but most companies should have been ready for remote work before the pandemic just due to our technology upgrades in the past 20 years. The pandemic was good in the sense that it finally forced companies who should have been ready to get into the 21st century. We're not going back 100% to how things were in January 2020. And for people who work for "good" companies, it will be up to the individual. I personally expect to be given the choice. There may be societal pressure to go back to work but I think I can get away with going in 2-3 days/wk rather than 5 and there will not be negative consequences for that. A lot of people will not have that choice, I agree. But a healthy minority of companies will give people a choice. Happy employees = more productive company

              Comment


              • #8
                My understanding is that the first step has occurred. Compensations will be adjusted. I have seen "concessions" but they come with a price and sometimes "satellite" offices are set up with some requirements (not daily). Many layers of the onion to peel. I will refrain from labeling a company as "good" based upon whether going to the office is required. One example is I don't label a school district as "good" because they allow online teaching. Situational.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JBME View Post
                  I believe a bunch of the companies in Silicon Valley also have built up huge campuses for their employees. At the same time, these companies were perhaps better equipped than many others to support remote working when the pandemic hit, and I recall stories of many people moving out of the Bay Area to get away from traffic, not to mention perhaps taxes. Some moved out of state and they continue to work for those companies. I can't imagine those companies requiring 100% of their employees to come back to work. Would they rather lose all of the knowledge of those employees if they quit? I do think the article is off-base with people being quoted as we're going to fully go back to the way things were before.

                  Perhaps I'm influenced by working from home for years many years prior to the pandemic, but with the internet age there's really no excuse to force 100% of people to come into work for all jobs. Not all jobs can be done from home for sure, but most companies should have been ready for remote work before the pandemic just due to our technology upgrades in the past 20 years. The pandemic was good in the sense that it finally forced companies who should have been ready to get into the 21st century. We're not going back 100% to how things were in January 2020. And for people who work for "good" companies, it will be up to the individual. I personally expect to be given the choice. There may be societal pressure to go back to work but I think I can get away with going in 2-3 days/wk rather than 5 and there will not be negative consequences for that. A lot of people will not have that choice, I agree. But a healthy minority of companies will give people a choice. Happy employees = more productive company
                  As mentioned, most bay area tech companies are reducing employees pay if they move from the local area, even during WFH. In the long run for those looking to buy a home, it would still make sense to move, but for those renting or who have already bought, the drop in pay is a big disincentive. This is especially true as the long term future of WFH is uncertain, so a google employee isn't (or shouldn't) going to buy that home outside kansas city to work from just yet.

                  I also think even the traditional "best" employers, like apple, google, facebook, etc are going to have their employees come back in. Their whole model has been to build these enormous campuses with great food, services, childcare, etc for the purposes of keeping people productive and at work in a collaborative environment. There are positive externalities to putting bright/talented people together, otherwise silicon valley wouldn't exist. Commute is less of an issue, because they can ride the google bus with high speed wifi and work during the commute.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I live in an area , where working actually means getting up and going to work and if you didn't go , you dont get paid, however that idea is somewhat foreign to a lot of individuals now

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JBME View Post
                      I believe a bunch of the companies in Silicon Valley also have built up huge campuses for their employees. At the same time, these companies were perhaps better equipped than many others to support remote working when the pandemic hit, and I recall stories of many people moving out of the Bay Area to get away from traffic, not to mention perhaps taxes. Some moved out of state and they continue to work for those companies. I can't imagine those companies requiring 100% of their employees to come back to work. Would they rather lose all of the knowledge of those employees if they quit? I do think the article is off-base with people being quoted as we're going to fully go back to the way things were before.

                      Perhaps I'm influenced by working from home for years many years prior to the pandemic, but with the internet age there's really no excuse to force 100% of people to come into work for all jobs. Not all jobs can be done from home for sure, but most companies should have been ready for remote work before the pandemic just due to our technology upgrades in the past 20 years. The pandemic was good in the sense that it finally forced companies who should have been ready to get into the 21st century. We're not going back 100% to how things were in January 2020. And for people who work for "good" companies, it will be up to the individual. I personally expect to be given the choice. There may be societal pressure to go back to work but I think I can get away with going in 2-3 days/wk rather than 5 and there will not be negative consequences for that. A lot of people will not have that choice, I agree. But a healthy minority of companies will give people a choice. Happy employees = more productive company
                      I have friends who work at some of the tech giants up there, and most of them have implemented a hybrid WFH/on-site system, with higher ups having more freedom to WFH. 2-3 days onsite for example is a common one. Most of the meetings were done via videoconferencing anyways even before covid, since they speak with their counterparts from Asia. Also, a lot of people in the Bay have also relocated to SoCal, and some companies have satellite campuses there they can go to when they are required to be on-site.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by xraygoggles View Post

                        I have friends who work at some of the tech giants up there, and most of them have implemented a hybrid WFH/on-site system, with higher ups having more freedom to WFH. 2-3 days onsite for example is a common one. Most of the meetings were done via videoconferencing anyways even before covid, since they speak with their counterparts from Asia. Also, a lot of people in the Bay have also relocated to SoCal, and some companies have satellite campuses there they can go to when they are required to be on-site.
                        I think west coast will take one path, east coast a different and who knows what flyover country with wander into and out of in time. I just can't get a handle on if this will be temporary or a permanent and how significant it will be.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Google has announced that around July 2021 they want workers in the office and that exemptions will be dealt on case by case basis. They must have done internal studies and found out that their innovations come from people being physically in the same environment together at the same time and not virtually in zoom calls. See they will do what is best for their company to grow and be the leader.

                          So if an employee insists on working from home they can evaluate if his physical presence is absolutely vital. If not, WFH but maybe reduce income ( no need to travel, buy work dress etc). If they are essential to be physically present the employees get some nudges, later an ultimatum and if nothing works, they might be let go and a new hire made.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kamban View Post
                            Google has announced that around July 2021 they want workers in the office and that exemptions will be dealt on case by case basis. They must have done internal studies and found out that their innovations come from people being physically in the same environment together at the same time and not virtually in zoom calls. See they will do what is best for their company to grow and be the leader.
                            I dunno bout that - did you see their incredible earnings growth yesterday? Almost unheard of for a mega-cap company. Seems like they were doing mighty fine and dandy doing the whole WFH thing past year.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I live in one of those areas of the country where a lot of us have been going in to work for awhile now. I'm pretty sure all of the local schools have been opened for most of the year (some offering virtual to those who want it). Granted, I'm not a fan of pretending like COVID doesn't exist, but I will say the few I've heard talk about going back to work recently have transitioned just fine.

                              WFH just wasn't for me. Primary care is hard enough as it is, and doing all of it behind a computer or telephone just wasn't working. I'm thankful that I get to go in to work every day (most days)!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X