58
submitted 11 months ago by NightGaunts@kbin.social to c/news@lemmy.world

Three and a half years after the start of the pandemic, employers are getting serious about increasing the amount of time workers spend in the office and trying new strategies to overcome resistance.

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Nurgle@lemmy.world 68 points 11 months ago

This would feel less gas lighty if they were just open about micromanaging, their 10yr commercial lease, keeping up appearances for older clients or whatever. Instead they say the most laughable shit

"What we've found is, people have enjoyed coming back to the office," says Zoom's Chief People Officer Matthew Saxon. "There is a buzz. There's something about being able to go have lunch with your teammates."

Like mother fucker 90% of people eat some sad meal prep shit at their desk.

[-] Phoenixbouncing@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago

My bet is that in 2 years we'll see a stark devide in talent in traditional Vs remote first companies with the latter getting pick of the litter so to speak.

[-] hightrix@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago

This is already happening. Remote roles are getting the cream of the crop while in office roles are getting the left overs.

People that are good and know it are not applying to in office jobs. Why would they sacrifice an additional 5-10 hours a week for no more pay and shitty open offices?

[-] escapesamsara@discuss.online 11 points 11 months ago

I mean the problem isn't even 'no more pay,' you are paid less if you work in an office. All the resources you use to commute cost more money than internet, which you're paying for anyway if you're alive in current year. Why would you willing take a pay cut, commit yourself to 5-10 unpaid hours of commuting, and ensure that you produce worse work and are less productive and producing that work while working in the most mentally and emotionally draining environments to ever be devised?

[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago

Not to mention that every fully or even partially remote role I've had let me expense some or all of my Internet and cell phone.

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

with the gas and mileage and undoubtubtly going out at least once in awhile or for some folks all the time.

[-] thessnake03@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago

It is nice having lunch with teammates. It's nicer having lunch at home in my sweats.

[-] 0110010001100010@kbin.social 11 points 11 months ago

I much prefer having lunch in my PJs with my cats to having lunch with my coworkers.

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

walking the dog at lunch is a massive.

[-] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 22 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The irony of Zoom encouraging back to the office.

Eating al desco is depressing, and pretty gross.

[-] Nurgle@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago

The worst is when someone comes up while you’re eating and is like “hey you have a minute?” and then you have to say no fuck off as professionally as possible.

[-] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Just masticate enthusiastically in their face

[-] ArtVandelay@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Ohhh mastiCATE. Got it now.

[-] scottywh@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

I have zero interest in lunch with my coworkers and I've pretty much always felt that way.

[-] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago

Remember when global carbon emissions dropped off because everyone was remote? Sure was nice while it lasted I guess.

[-] crowsby@kbin.social 22 points 11 months ago

So I do analysis on this type of data as part of my role at an online job board. Based on our data, a couple things stand out:

  • Overall job volume is down about 40% year-over-year. So the market in general is a lot tighter.
  • The proportion of remote roles is dropping, but slowly. A year ago about 70% of our roles were fully remote; now it's about 60%.
  • The proportion of fully in-office roles has actually remained relatively stagnant, generally floating around 15%-20% at any given time. They're also very difficult roles to fill because A) they're limited to actual geographies and B) they are nobody's first choice
  • Between February 2023 and now, the median # of applications we get per role has spiked sharply; particularly with remote roles. These roles unsurprisingly remain jobseekers' first choice, and since they're not limited by geography, tend to pull in a_much_ wider talent pool, especially since the overall number and proportion of remote roles continues to shrink.

So what I'm seeing is many of these remote roles becoming supplanted by hybrid roles, which has pros and cons. They're still limited by the same geographic constraints as in-office roles, since you're not going to be applying to a hybrid role across the country, after all. So you'll see less variety of employers. The advantage is that if there is a hybrid role that looks appealing to you, that you'll be facing a lot less competition than you would for a fully remote role.

[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 16 points 11 months ago

Good luck assholes, I'm never going back into an office

[-] holiday@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

I'm surprised share holders of a lot of big companies aren't demanding WFH. Office space is one of the larger chunks of overhead for a company (not just the space but utilities, supplies, maintenance/cleaning).

My guess is as leases are coming to an end that companies will definitely think twice before signing when WFH is an option.

My current job has us in the office a few days every 6-8 weeks and if it went to anymore than that the majority of the team I'm on would quit. It's pretty easy to find work right now with unemployment below 4%

[-] escapesamsara@discuss.online 13 points 11 months ago

Because office space 'overhead' was solved for decades ago. The same shareholders of a company own shares in at least a dozen commercial real estate companies. Their bottom line goes up when a company rents or owns commercial property. It doesn't matter if ProductionCo loses 10% revenue a year, RealEstateCo gets at least that much plus all more if they own the surrounding buildings all the restaurants are in that support the office.

Capitalism, contrary to popular belief, does not optimize for economic efficiency, just profit; and as it turns out profit has little to do with efficiency if you zoom out of any one particular company.

[-] xhieron@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

This. The office, the restaurants, the gym, the local stores? They're all owned by the same capitalists, and they want you spending your paycheck there. This is about converting the limited hours of your life into wealth for the rent-seeking bourgeousie: it's still the same company store. It just has a different name.

No war but the class war.

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

We got bought out by a holding corp and none of their holdings are real estate. All tech. We have been 100% wfh and a bit back they closed down the smaller offices but now they are dropping most all of them. Even the main office is being shuttered but they said with that one they are looking for a smaller space but at least for awhile I believe we will have no US offices.

this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
58 points (93.9% liked)

News

22526 readers
3867 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS