quote:
What if I told you that’s great and we get that, good for you. But not every single industry and every single business is like that? Again, if you can do that great. But let’s not act like just because you can EVERYONE can.

You're doing the exact same thing, but on the opposite side.

There are some jobs that can be 100% remote, there are some that can be a hybrid model, and there are some that need asses in seats every day. Painting every situation with a broad brush is stupid.

ETA: my "problem" with the "reasoning" behind some of the move back to a work from the office model is that it's not really motivated by a "need" for the employees to be back in the office. I was on a call with a c-suite executive in for a large healthcare organization and he mentioned that they were going to move employees back into offices because the mayor and governor wouldn't be happy if these employees were able to live elsewhere (thus bringing tax revenue elsewhere). That's a horseshite reason, IMO.

This post was edited on 6/16/21 at 7:48 am

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bluefin

The Banana Stand

Member since Apr 2011

13271 posts

Posted on 6/16/21 at 8:08 am to Epic Cajun

quote:
he mentioned that they were going to move employees back into offices because the mayor and governor wouldn't be happy if these employees were able to live elsewhere (thus bringing tax revenue elsewhere). That's a horseshite reason, IMO.

I've heard one of the main reasons that the mayors of big cities want workers back in the buildings is because otherwise there are $750 million high rises that are 85% empty. If companies that own/lease these spaces can't sell them off because no other companies are working in-person, there are massive drains on their city's revenue.

Companies will certainly save money by switching the WFH full-time, but they'll also be losing money with everything they shelled out for office space that they can't get rid of. For the governments and companies based out of NYC, LA, Chicago, etc., the easiest solution is to just try to get their employees back.

I'm not one who cares about the health of big urban centers, but anyone who has lived in "up-and-coming" cities like me (particularly in the south) have seen swaths of NYC, DC, and Boston transplants who are nothing more than glorified data entry clerks move down here and raise the cost of everything with their six-figure salaries that truly aren't commensurate with their skills. They're pricing the native residents out of the market all because they earn a pay that is reflective of our market before the pandemic.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Oilfieldbiology

Member since Nov 2016

37728 posts

Posted on 6/16/21 at 8:12 am to Epic Cajun

quote:
my "problem" with the "reasoning" behind some of the move back to a work from the office model is that it's not really motivated by a "need" for the employees to be back in the office.

There isn’t a need for most employees to be in the office 100% of the time. But being 100% wfh absolutely hinders development of new hires that have yet to network and don’t even know what they don’t know yet.

Being 100% either way isn’t the answer. The answer is customizing your schedules to do what works best for each team and company. However this thread has diverged from what the CEO said. He didn’t say you had to work in the office. He said you won’t be paid NYC paychecks while not living in NYC

0 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board