Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, those working from home are definitely the elite, which may become an issue. You can see that developing here.
Not quite. The "remote workers" can be 10-100% wfh. (From article) Workers are considered remote if they report working from home at least 10% of the time in the past week.
52% of all jobs reported were wfh at least pt-ft. So there's still quite a bit of office work still going on.
Not every job being translatable to WFH is no excuse to penalize those workers for whom it is feasible, desirable, and preferable. If the non-WFH people don't like it, let them train and apply for jobs that can be done remotely.
You raise interesting points. When some people say everyone should just accept going back to the office they are implying that all offices are similar but some offices are more old-school with draconian policies while other offices are more up to date with the times. I am happy to return to an office if hybrid schedules and/or flexible work hours are embraced but the rigid schedules, dress codes and 5 days a week in the office every week are turn offs.
Rigid schedules should be reserved for workers that need to provide mandatory onsite coverage like a reception desk or some facilities related functions.
I found this article by Forbes on rigid work schedules. I can't believe a manager would refuse to let an employee time shift their schedule by one half hour.
Exactly I've worked in some offices where I would prefer to work at the office, I worked for 2 ISP's that were such good work environment's that I almost felt guilty accepting a paycheck, but those places are rare.
and both of those places got bought by bigger companies and turned into the traditional soul sucking offices and in both cases productivity actually went down after the changes and clueless new management not understanding why.
Everyone is "replaceable" in The eyes of Corporate Management Sociopaths. They only have two concerns: Themselves and their bonuses. Who cares if the company crashes and burns with a bunch of people sitting at home doing god knows what all day or sitting in the office doing nothing? .
Except corp earnings have continued to grow the last several decades. The shareholders, who own the companies, just like homeowners watching home values soar, have benefitted, and deserved to, thanks to management doing as they are supposed to do-maximize shareholder value.
Slight slide in 2020 China virus year, but no worries. Our corps, decade in, decade out, are doing just fine.
If you like being a number, then be a remote person. And when your numbers up, you get to be a number in the unemployment system.
I get that it saves you from gas to time.
That in itself means your putting in a fool's day of work.
Sorry but I sat in offices (which I enjoyed!) And anytime one of our sales person's played the...'im working from home' . The weekly projection fell and the response was...it's a tough market ! My boss said, get in front of your client. Show the product. Stop this nonsense that they just want a price and a picture. They want YOU to earn your worth.
I'm going say that your boss' response would have been the same regardless of where that salesperson was working from. Bottomline, sales were down that week, and he/she wanted the sales people in front of clients.
Most sales people I know (IT industry) were essentially working from home for years. And I'm referring to the time they were not in front of clients. Meaning they were creating quotes, making sales calls, etc. from home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by njbiodude
My buddy was bragging in the beginning how he could make 200k+ napping in the middle of the workday and riding an exercise bicycle while watching TV.
First the company had him work extensively with Asia and work strange hours. Now the company has had repeated layoffs and has gone on a hiring spree in India.
I work a job that can't be done from home and it's business as usual for me.
Anecdotal evidence is just that. I've been WFH (up to 80%) for almost 10 years now and it's been business as usual. And there are entire sectors that have been doing the same. This doesn't mean WFH is better.... but just an option that is now taking hold as many people prefer it. If you want to go into an office, go for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan
You raise interesting points. When some people say everyone should just accept going back to the office they are implying that all offices are similar but some offices are more old-school with draconian policies while other offices are more up to date with the times. I am happy to return to an office if hybrid schedules and/or flexible work hours are embraced but the rigid schedules, dress codes and 5 days a week in the office every week are turn offs.
Rigid schedules should be reserved for workers that need to provide mandatory onsite coverage like a reception desk or some facilities related functions.
I found this article by Forbes on rigid work schedules. I can't believe a manager would refuse to let an employee time shift their schedule by one half hour.
With all due respect - this is hardly an article. This is essentially an "dear abby" editorial. That said, I follow Liz and often agree with her. This is really more a case of incompatible manager/staff relationship. As she indicated, the manager is no longer a match for the person asking for advice.
And honestly - this has little to do with WFH. It's a management issue.
Back to the original topic:
WFH is not a new concept. It is however, new for many. So it will take time for people to get used to. Both management and staff. And as with anything else, it's not going to suit every office environment.
Tell that to the tends of thousands of US Citizens laid off by Disney, Cengage Learning, Abbot Labs, SunTrust, and the other dozens of companies, who replaced them with H-1B visa holders.
What could the US Citizens do to keep their jobs? Nothing. These people were forced to TRAIN their replacements - who didn't know how to do their jobs.
Even the California Unemployment office hired H-1B visa holders instead of, you know - the obvious, looking at the large number of laid off US Citizens collecting benefits.
But wait. That's not all.
Imagine the hiring manager gets two resumes.
* H-1B visa holder currently working at Disney
* unemployed US Citizen who last worked at Disney.
Guess who gets the job?
The H-1B visa holder is a "passive candidate" and the hiring manager drools over that. So the visa holder gets the job.
The US Citizen is discriminated against for being out of work. Rejected, and stereotyped as worthless. Age discrimination on top of the nonsense.
That isn't how H-1B visas work. Someone with an H-1B visa has to be sponsored by an employer, and it isn't cheap. We've had to take on a handful where I work through acquisitions we have done and I can say certainly in our case because of the expense, administrative hassle and uncertainty we would never prefer an H1-B over a citizen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
