Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?
-
@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?
-
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@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.
you wonder what stupid c-level created those jobs in the first place?
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@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
Of course, why else would someone go to the office? Not that there are no reasons. But let's be honest, offices rarely have the nice desks, computers, monitors, chairs, etc. that we have at home. Plus you have to commute. When I worked in hedge funds, people openly talked about how they worked long hours to avoid their families that they didn't like. So there are clearly alternative reasons, and everyone wants a change of scenery sometimes, but you get that with WFH anyway as you can work anywhere.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@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.
you wonder what stupid c-level created those jobs in the first place?
The fact that nearly everything can turn into a lawsuit and win something created those jobs..
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@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.
you wonder what stupid c-level created those jobs in the first place?
One who sees the business as a hobby or gets paid based on head count and cares more about their pay than the success of the company - which is most since pay is why you take the job at all.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@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.
you're right - as long as it's equal, I suppose it has value, but it can't cost the company anything, otherwise why would the company do it. But breaking even might be worth it - and I'll argue that it's never actually a break even, because in a simple break even, situations like Covid-19 screw you, you suddenly find yourself WAY underwater on these employees - so there has to be an upside - like PR, etc.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@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?
then what are you saying is happening today that people are not revolting over?
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
you're right - as long as it's equal, I suppose it has value, but it can't cost the company anything, otherwise why would the company do it.
Right, so if they get a $6 tax sub, and they get $3 of value, and they pay $8, the tax payers are paying $1 to the company to bother and $5 to the welfare recipient.
-
@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?:
@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?
then what are you saying is happening today that people are not revolting over?
Correct. That's exactly what I'm saying. That people with fake jobs getting welfare money via American taxes often get a lot of money and no one complains and it is considered socially unacceptable to even point out that that is what is happening.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
and I'll argue that it's never actually a break even, because in a simple break even, situations like Covid-19 screw you, you suddenly find yourself WAY underwater on these employees - so there has to be an upside - like PR, etc.
Again, not a true assumption. You assume you can't lay them off, that you can't demand more gov't money, that you don't get subsidies for that (companies did, in droves, having those employees actually made HUGE additional profits), etc. COVID was a windfall for companies in those situations, rather than a curse.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@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
Of course, why else would someone go to the office? Not that there are no reasons. But let's be honest, offices rarely have the nice desks, computers, monitors, chairs, etc. that we have at home. Plus you have to commute. When I worked in hedge funds, people openly talked about how they worked long hours to avoid their families that they didn't like. So there are clearly alternative reasons, and everyone wants a change of scenery sometimes, but you get that with WFH anyway as you can work anywhere.
nice desk/chair - what?
I personally know no one who has a nicer WFH that was working from an office before Covid, than what they have at work.
Hell I only have one example of someone who comes close, and it's not as good - he has a dual monitor setup on a tiny 3 ft wide x 28 in deep desk he's working from... He has a reasonable chair, similar to what he has in is office.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
nice desk/chair - what?
I personally know no one who has a nicer WFH that was working from an office before Covid, than what they have at work.I know no one who didn't. Of course, I tend to know real workers more often than not, and not like doctors or other "professionals". Those often don't even have computers at home. But they can't work from home generally, either. But basically anyone with working value that isn't blue collar, you know their home setups are better than work because the office almost never cares and at home, they always do.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
nice desk/chair - what?
I personally know no one who has a nicer WFH that was working from an office before Covid, than what they have at work.I know no one who didn't. Of course, I tend to know real workers more often than not, and not like doctors or other "professionals". Those often don't even have computers at home. But they can't work from home generally, either. But basically anyone with working value that isn't blue collar, you know their home setups are better than work because the office almost never cares and at home, they always do.
I wonder why they have such nice setups pre-covid work from the office - why bother with a nice setup at home, unless they are spending a ton of time on that system doing non work things.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
nice desk/chair - what?
I personally know no one who has a nicer WFH that was working from an office before Covid, than what they have at work.I know no one who didn't. Of course, I tend to know real workers more often than not, and not like doctors or other "professionals". Those often don't even have computers at home. But they can't work from home generally, either. But basically anyone with working value that isn't blue collar, you know their home setups are better than work because the office almost never cares and at home, they always do.
Most of ours do, of course most of our people will work from home here and there on some days (we allow a lot of flexibility as a family first company) such as work from home when kids or sick, out of school etc. plus, we have a lot of people that will do work after hours from home (like myself) because we just simply get more done without the distractions. We tend to issue out most people docks for home and work when issuing laptops.
