Recent comments in /f/technology

XanKreigor t1_jeed3ph wrote

Reply to comment by Derfal-Cadern in Meta stops offering remote work in new job postings as Mark Zuckerberg pushes the benefits of coming to the office by Ben_aid

Partially because, in most cases, they would see a return on investment in just the quality of candidates available, let alone indirect benefits such as employees with fewer reasons to not come into work at all, e.g. being "sick".

We're finding that many people ARE saying "sod this" when it comes to positions without remote availability. For the most part there are no benefits to coming into an office. The two biggest ones being an easier time during communication as understanding increases the more context you have (like body language) and that the value of money spent on a corporate lease won't plummet.

To answer in a more philosophical way, why should individuals not be compensated for their time working? I would argue vehemently that the commute is work time and should be paid as such. If companies don't want to pay for that time, they should hire closer to their location or offer remote positions.

6

uacabaca t1_jeecmld wrote

Reply to comment by UNSECURE_ACCOUNT in CEOs are quietly backtracking on remote work—and more companies could follow by ethereal3xp

Mmm no. Rates are increasing and so cost of money. This means less "free" money to borrow for growth, so less growth. When you foresee less growth your shareholders will demand job cuts, otherwise the stock would tank. Then you start cutting projects and firing people. The ones that remain are overburdened by the tasks that were done by the ones that were fired. So they have to work more, under the pressure of being fired like their former colleagues. In other words, workers are paying for those stocks.

How you all are believing the narrative that they are "trimming fat" is beyond me. Google, for example, made profits into the billions (1 billion can feed 10000 families for a year) and still fired.

1