Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
employees feel disconnected from life from lack of human interactions in person.
Read: they get too much work done at home and like the excuses provided by the office environment to socialize and avoid work that they can't excuse at home.
Wow - that's about the most negative way to ever try to spin that.
Just because you hate people doesn't mean most others who (I don't think you actually hate people - so just ignore this in your response). We are social creatures, most of us don't want to be locked away in a room chumming away for 8 hours while having zero contact with others.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
And even if we did - those working would likely revolt against those who don't work, because - why the hell should I work when that person gets to stay home and do nothing and still get paid?
Then maybe evolution needs to take the chaff of society out of the gene pool. If the truth that they already aren't working but are getting the profits others work for is a problem, then there is a problem already.
-
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
some employees just can't do it - they can't stay on task while at home
But can they in the office? These are the same people who derail others in the office.
Studies show that people stay MORE on task at home. If we cared about people being on task, the office would have been ruled out long ago. So clearly, no one using an office is concerned with this, so this is moot.
Sure, a few people are useless anywhere, but the majority work better at home.
I'm way more distracted in the office, my Boss and our CIO would let me work from home, but it's the fact that others will complain that's it's not fair etc that it doesn't happen. Company politics and all..
So let them all work from home. Create metrics that allow them to be measured and then disperse.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
Wow - that's about the most negative way to ever try to spin that.
Not really spin, just not trying to sugar coat it.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
Just because you hate people doesn't mean most others who (I don't think you actually hate people - so just ignore this in your response). We are social creatures, most of us don't want to be locked away in a room chumming away for 8 hours while having zero contact with others.
I'm the most social person I know. I'm just honest about what that means in a work environment. If you are at work, being productive, you don't get to see other people or socialize. That you see work as your place to get your personal time in is exactly the point - that you aren't going in in order to be productive or to do your job, but to get in social time on the company's bill.
Nothing wrong with wanting to be with people, I want to be with people. The problem is trying to act like people aren't demanding that they be paid to socialize instead of to work.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
some employees just can't do it - they can't stay on task while at home
But can they in the office? These are the same people who derail others in the office.
Studies show that people stay MORE on task at home. If we cared about people being on task, the office would have been ruled out long ago. So clearly, no one using an office is concerned with this, so this is moot.
Sure, a few people are useless anywhere, but the majority work better at home.
I'm way more distracted in the office, my Boss and our CIO would let me work from home, but it's the fact that others will complain that's it's not fair etc that it doesn't happen. Company politics and all..
So let them all work from home. Create metrics that allow them to be measured and then disperse.
Why create metrics? If you don't need those metrics in a less conducive environment, you don't need them in a more productive one.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
You're right, those people won't at the office either.. so really, they should likely just be unemployed, but we don't have a system for those people - we don't have a wellfare system to keep them at home yet having money to live.
Right now we do, they are called welfare companies and they use public funds to put people who have no value to the economy in seats. The military heavily subsidizes these companies, as an example, like Lockheed. They hide the true unemployment numbers by making fake jobs for useless people.
Even normal companies, like MS, Google, McDonalds, etc. are given huge sums of money to employ the otherwise unemployable. Normally in tax advantages or some kinds of contracts.
At the end of the day, you, as an American, pay double for these people than you would if they were just on straight welfare.
You've said this in the past, though I've never seen the evidence of what you speak. But perhaps I'm mistaken and you haven't said that in the past. I know you talk about BK (someplace you worked) as being a job for just this type of people - so you know that BK received gov't money to employ people that should otherwise be unemployed?
Frankly, this only works if the unemployed are being paid like 1/3 or even less than the min wage for those working... that way those working don't feel like they are being taken advantage of - I work, so I get to live a MUCH better life than those who don't.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
And even if we did - those working would likely revolt against those who don't work, because - why the hell should I work when that person gets to stay home and do nothing and still get paid?
Then maybe evolution needs to take the chaff of society out of the gene pool. If the truth that they already aren't working but are getting the profits others work for is a problem, then there is a problem already.
Come on - tell you know there already is.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
some employees just can't do it - they can't stay on task while at home
But can they in the office? These are the same people who derail others in the office.
Studies show that people stay MORE on task at home. If we cared about people being on task, the office would have been ruled out long ago. So clearly, no one using an office is concerned with this, so this is moot.
Sure, a few people are useless anywhere, but the majority work better at home.
I'm way more distracted in the office, my Boss and our CIO would let me work from home, but it's the fact that others will complain that's it's not fair etc that it doesn't happen. Company politics and all..
So let them all work from home. Create metrics that allow them to be measured and then disperse.
Why create metrics? If you don't need those metrics in a less conducive environment, you don't need them in a more productive one.
This is the solution to the management problem - they "believe" people are more productive at work than at home... they dont' know it, they are blinded by their own lack of a job if the employees are working from home perhaps..
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
You've said this in the past, though I've never seen the evidence of what you speak. But perhaps I'm mistaken and you haven't said that in the past. I know you talk about BK (someplace you worked) as being a job for just this type of people - so you know that BK received gov't money to employ people that should otherwise be unemployed?
Yes, it's a massive tax subsidy that nearly all businesses like that get. It's standard and common knowledge. When you offer to create jobs in a town or whatever, you make tax deals with the government based on the jobs you create. This is so common I shouldn't have to mention it, it's on the news constantly. It's just one of those things everyone knows, but everyone ignores, because it's so common that we forget that it's always mentioned. But listen for it "Company X received a tax incentive to blah blah"... that's welfare in practice.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
Frankly, this only works if the unemployed are being paid like 1/3 or even less than the min wage for those working... that way those working don't feel like they are being taken advantage of - I work, so I get to live a MUCH better life than those who don't.
Except it doesn't. As this happens today, and you act like it's not even happening, shows how insanely effective it is.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
some employees just can't do it - they can't stay on task while at home
But can they in the office? These are the same people who derail others in the office.
Studies show that people stay MORE on task at home. If we cared about people being on task, the office would have been ruled out long ago. So clearly, no one using an office is concerned with this, so this is moot.
Sure, a few people are useless anywhere, but the majority work better at home.
I'm 50/50, I prefer to work from home but with an option to work at the office.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
some employees just can't do it - they can't stay on task while at home
But can they in the office? These are the same people who derail others in the office.
Studies show that people stay MORE on task at home. If we cared about people being on task, the office would have been ruled out long ago. So clearly, no one using an office is concerned with this, so this is moot.
Sure, a few people are useless anywhere, but the majority work better at home.
I'm way more distracted in the office, my Boss and our CIO would let me work from home, but it's the fact that others will complain that's it's not fair etc that it doesn't happen. Company politics and all..
So let them all work from home. Create metrics that allow them to be measured and then disperse.
Why create metrics? If you don't need those metrics in a less conducive environment, you don't need them in a more productive one.
This is the solution to the management problem - they "believe" people are more productive at work than at home... they dont' know it, they are blinded by their own lack of a job if the employees are working from home perhaps..
It's not. It's a bandaid. Taking a useless, in the way, manager who is undermining the business and forcing metrics on them that they don't understand or care about might force them to stop lying to their bosses, but it doesn't change the actual issue - managers who aren't trying to work for the business or make their people productive.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
some employees just can't do it - they can't stay on task while at home
But can they in the office? These are the same people who derail others in the office.
Studies show that people stay MORE on task at home. If we cared about people being on task, the office would have been ruled out long ago. So clearly, no one using an office is concerned with this, so this is moot.
Sure, a few people are useless anywhere, but the majority work better at home.
I'm way more distracted in the office, my Boss and our CIO would let me work from home, but it's the fact that others will complain that's it's not fair etc that it doesn't happen. Company politics and all..
So let them all work from home. Create metrics that allow them to be measured and then disperse.
Why create metrics? If you don't need those metrics in a less conducive environment, you don't need them in a more productive one.
This is the solution to the management problem - they "believe" people are more productive at work than at home... they dont' know it, they are blinded by their own lack of a job if the employees are working from home perhaps..
It's well known in the business world that supervisors and lower management are some of the dumpest people in the company, even C-level's joke about this.. sometimes jobs are even created for these people to stop them from fucking up the actual work.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
You've said this in the past, though I've never seen the evidence of what you speak. But perhaps I'm mistaken and you haven't said that in the past. I know you talk about BK (someplace you worked) as being a job for just this type of people - so you know that BK received gov't money to employ people that should otherwise be unemployed?
Yes, it's a massive tax subsidy that nearly all businesses like that get. It's standard and common knowledge. When you offer to create jobs in a town or whatever, you make tax deals with the government based on the jobs you create. This is so common I shouldn't have to mention it, it's on the news constantly. It's just one of those things everyone knows, but everyone ignores, because it's so common that we forget that it's always mentioned. But listen for it "Company X received a tax incentive to blah blah"... that's welfare in practice.
OK that's true - and I suppose as long as the tax break is larger than the salary paid to the jobs they have to create - this makes sense forthe company to do so - I've never seen the numbers, so I have no idea if that's actually the case or not. Are you saying you have? you've seen the numbers and know that the tax breaks are greater than the cost of the employees on payroll?
-
@black3dynamite said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
some employees just can't do it - they can't stay on task while at home
But can they in the office? These are the same people who derail others in the office.
Studies show that people stay MORE on task at home. If we cared about people being on task, the office would have been ruled out long ago. So clearly, no one using an office is concerned with this, so this is moot.
Sure, a few people are useless anywhere, but the majority work better at home.
I'm 50/50, I prefer to work from home but with an option to work at the office.
Office options are fine - when you control them and don't allow them to become a "get out of work free" card as so many employers do.
But I admit, I love going to the office sometimes to get a day "off" where no one can question why you got nothing done.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
Frankly, this only works if the unemployed are being paid like 1/3 or even less than the min wage for those working... that way those working don't feel like they are being taken advantage of - I work, so I get to live a MUCH better life than those who don't.
Except it doesn't. As this happens today, and you act like it's not even happening, shows how insanely effective it is.
How do you figure? Sure there are millions on welfare, but there are millions more who are jobless and not on welfare because their portion ran out.
-
@black3dynamite said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
some employees just can't do it - they can't stay on task while at home
But can they in the office? These are the same people who derail others in the office.
Studies show that people stay MORE on task at home. If we cared about people being on task, the office would have been ruled out long ago. So clearly, no one using an office is concerned with this, so this is moot.
Sure, a few people are useless anywhere, but the majority work better at home.
I'm 50/50, I prefer to work from home but with an option to work at the office.
why? because as scott mentioned you want company sanctioned waste time to talk to fellow employees? lol
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
You've said this in the past, though I've never seen the evidence of what you speak. But perhaps I'm mistaken and you haven't said that in the past. I know you talk about BK (someplace you worked) as being a job for just this type of people - so you know that BK received gov't money to employ people that should otherwise be unemployed?
Yes, it's a massive tax subsidy that nearly all businesses like that get. It's standard and common knowledge. When you offer to create jobs in a town or whatever, you make tax deals with the government based on the jobs you create. This is so common I shouldn't have to mention it, it's on the news constantly. It's just one of those things everyone knows, but everyone ignores, because it's so common that we forget that it's always mentioned. But listen for it "Company X received a tax incentive to blah blah"... that's welfare in practice.
OK that's true - and I suppose as long as the tax break is larger than the salary paid to the jobs they have to create - this makes sense forthe company to do so - I've never seen the numbers, so I have no idea if that's actually the case or not. Are you saying you have? you've seen the numbers and know that the tax breaks are greater than the cost of the employees on payroll?
Doesn't have to be larger, that's not how things work. It only has to be large enough to make it make sense. You've created a completely false requirement based on who knows what assumption and applied it as a rule.
You are assuming that having an employee who isn't worth paying automatically means that they have negative value. That's quite an assumption. You are basically saying that some humans are worth minimum wage or more, and some are worth zero, and there is absolutely nothing in between.
Logically, that makes no sense. Some people bring $10/hr of value, some $8/hr, some minimum wage, some $2/hr. It's all over the map.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
Frankly, this only works if the unemployed are being paid like 1/3 or even less than the min wage for those working... that way those working don't feel like they are being taken advantage of - I work, so I get to live a MUCH better life than those who don't.
Except it doesn't. As this happens today, and you act like it's not even happening, shows how insanely effective it is.
How do you figure? Sure there are millions on welfare, but there are millions more who are jobless and not on welfare because their portion ran out.
Sure, but this has nothing to do with what we were talking about so what are you saying?
