AT&T Workers Fight Return To Office Push: 'We Can Do the Same Job From Home' (theguardian.com) 147
AT&T workers are pushing to keep working from home as an option, citing "long commutes to and from work, exorbitant childcare costs, ongoing concerns over exposure to COVID-19 variants and now monkeybox," reports The Guardian. From the report: At AT&T, the world's largest telecommunication company, workers represented by the Communications Workers of America agreed to a work from home extension until the end of March 2023, but workers say the company is forcing many workers to return to the office much sooner than that, while other departments had already been forced back to the office by their managers. [...] AT&T workers have started a petition demanding the company makes working from home a permanent option for workers. [...] Val Williams, an AT&T worker and union steward for the Communications Workers of America in Houston, Texas, was forced to return to work in the office in April 2022. She criticized the push to bring workers back into the office after she said workers had been praised for productivity while working from home.
Williams criticized the pushback to return to the office given AT&T is a communications company with the technology and resources to make working from home a seamless option. "Our revenue has increased over the last two years while we were working from home. Our job descriptions state we are capable of working with little to minimum management and that's what we've been doing," she said. She also argued it was unfair how the push to return workers to the office has been enforced, with some departments being brought back while others are still working from home. "We don't feel like anybody's health is greater than any others. Because everybody has their own health issues, or they may have family members that have health issues that they have to return home to," she added. [...] A spokesperson for AT&T did not provide data on how many workers at the company are still working from home, but claimed it was never the company's intention to make working from home indefinite. "The health and safety of our employees continues to be our priority," said the spokesperson in an email. "As we have throughout the pandemic, we adhere to guidance from the medical community, including implementing safety protocols to help protect our employees' wellbeing. And now that we are a largely vaccinated workforce, we believe it's safe for employees to return to the workplace. We do our best work when we're together."
Williams criticized the pushback to return to the office given AT&T is a communications company with the technology and resources to make working from home a seamless option. "Our revenue has increased over the last two years while we were working from home. Our job descriptions state we are capable of working with little to minimum management and that's what we've been doing," she said. She also argued it was unfair how the push to return workers to the office has been enforced, with some departments being brought back while others are still working from home. "We don't feel like anybody's health is greater than any others. Because everybody has their own health issues, or they may have family members that have health issues that they have to return home to," she added. [...] A spokesperson for AT&T did not provide data on how many workers at the company are still working from home, but claimed it was never the company's intention to make working from home indefinite. "The health and safety of our employees continues to be our priority," said the spokesperson in an email. "As we have throughout the pandemic, we adhere to guidance from the medical community, including implementing safety protocols to help protect our employees' wellbeing. And now that we are a largely vaccinated workforce, we believe it's safe for employees to return to the workplace. We do our best work when we're together."
It's not about productivity (Score:3)
It's about being able to force your workers into being in the same place all at once so your water cooler talk can suddenly become inspirational to someone or others can continually interrupt your productivity. Those who don't want to travel to work each day can find another job. Many companies relish the opportunity to have employees voluntarily quit with so simple an ask, so they can hire replacements at lower cost or simply spread out the work.
Also, I bet all those bean counters and c-level folks hate seeing all that empty office space they paid for.
If you have time for water cooler talk (Score:5, Interesting)
This is about property values. Value of commercial real estate has been plummeting. Folks don't seem to understand that the people who make the decisions about your life I'll sit on each other's board of directors and all have investments in commercial real estate. When people talk about the ruling class this is what they mean. It's a web of interconnected special interests
Re: If you have time for water cooler talk (Score:2)
Re: If you have time for water cooler talk (Score:4, Insightful)
In an office (when I was there) I work at a small desk in a row of desks with noise canceling headphones on. This hurts my ears because I wear glasses, but it's the only way to hear myself think in all that noise to write code.
Then when I need to attend a meeting, it's not in my office so I zoom/webex/whatever. When I need to talk to the person next to me I slack/jabber/whatever them.
Now I have a dedicated room in my home, a wonderful desk and chair. My camera and microphone setup allow me to attend meetings without a headset. I can eat lunch with my wife who also works from home in her own office. I can take walks, have a cat on my lap. I can make my own lunches, run chores at lunch, play some xbox on a break. My life is better. My productivity is up, and I'm going on 7 years now, but I'll never go back to an office.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nobody has time for water cooler talk anymore except for a few of the older well connected employees or on their way to retirement and company doesn't see fit to bother laying them off."
My team has an explicitly scheduled "water cooler" chat every Monday morning, .
Re:If you have time for water cooler talk (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple: If there's empty office buildings, your investors and shareholders will want to know from you why the hell your company still pays rent for buildings that are essentially useless and a waste of corporate money, i.e. money they could have been paid instead.
If you have an investment in those real estates (and a lot of them do because they "knew" 5 years ago that a certain company will have to rent these buildings forever and ever), you don't want that to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
That and the management is frustrated that they can't reach things on the high shelves with those stubby little dinosaur arms and they're taking it out on the small mammals.
Re:It's not about productivity (Score:4, Insightful)
You DO NOT want your workers to quit "voluntarily" when you want to get rid of some of the slack. Because the slack is what stays. Think about it: Who quits? Those that can (and do) get other jobs. Those that not only have the energy and drive to shop around for another job but who also have the qualifications, skills and enthusiasm to find other jobs.
What stays is the slackers, the people who already internally surrendered and the ones who were wrongfully promoted to a job they can't do and know they can't do, and either already know or quickly find out that they can't get that job anywhere else because they ain't qualified, so they have to stay.
Why the hell would you want that?
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it is not about productivity, but about power.
This is a union shop. This is likely a power play pre-negotiation tactic from both the company and the union to pump up the importance of work-from-home as an issue so that it can be won by the union as a long-term benefit for their members in exchange for something the company values. The company knows it won't cost them much to do it -now that it has been demonstrated during the pandemic, and the members strongly desire it. Negotiation 101. Win f
Re:It's not about productivity (Score:4, Insightful)
I did. They already had a ton of communications from people working from home when I was on their lightspeed project. There were so many fuckups and delays from people who were never able to communicate directly.
Really? You're going to reference a 15+ year old project as a legitimate reason to not have remote work here in 2022? Sure, back in your day, it probably was a hassle with a lot of the remote employees. However, the infrastructure for working from home for most types of jobs was ass-tier at best. Broadband is more prominent and faster now. Cell phones are practically ubiquitous and can do PC level tasks that were definitely not doable back then.
Information density is much higher, and the ability for information to filter 'organically' from person to person who are in close proximity is also higher.
Bullshit and not a true statement. Information density, in either setting, is exactly as low or high as the company wants it to be. You can be, and I have been, in offices that have little to no person-to-person, work-related information density. Likewise, a completely remote company, can have very high information density, that is even easier to access then "talking to Greg, who is currently out at lunch and will be back in an hour". Only lazy morons would claim that it would be impossible to have equally high information density, if not higher, with remote workers nowadays.
They want to control what gets done, how it is done, and ability to track it.
Yeah, and the ability to do all of that remotely exists for most jobs. That's the whole point. If it CAN be done remotely just as well as in-office, then why is it such a problem to let them stay there? Especially, when by the company's own metrics, they did BETTER (both the person and the company). None of your argument holds ANY water whatsoever.
You want to know why there were so many fuckups on that project? It had nothing to do with the remote workers. AT&T management was absolute shit at the time at every single level. They mismanaged the fuck out of it. And if you were management level on the project, then you were part of the problem and not the remote employees. If you weren't management on it, then your level of first-hand, low-level information is absolutely useless.
Counterpoint (Score:2)
With huge organizations, it is too easy for the left hand to not know what the right hand is doing, and this is minimized when workers are in closer proximity
I have worked for a large telco before, what you say goes if people are in the office or not.
I fact I would state that categorically clarity of communications across a larger group is improved by teams using something like Slack, because everyone can see, and refer back to, communications there.
Your dream is some one off "organic" meeting that no-one
Re: (Score:3)
I fact I would state that categorically clarity of communications across a larger group is improved by teams using something like Slack, because everyone can see, and refer back to, communications there.
Exactly this.
and then other people get inevitably corrupted word of mouth info for.
And this.
Having a written record is key, no more people who weren't listening or missed the key points, no more people who got corrupted second hand information, no more people who forgot what they heard in the meeting, no more arguing and misunderstanding about what was said or meant. It's all there in black and white.
And this is what some people absolutely hate, because everyone makes mistakes but when it's written down you can't try to cover it up later - you have to own your mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
I've known corporate lawyers who would be aghast at this. Anything written down can be subpoenaed. Records retention should be the bare minimum you can get away with by law, and remember that if it's
Re: (Score:3)
I think there is some case to be m
Re: Counterpoint (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to mod you up, but I feel like knowing Slashdot? It'll be wasted on the "back and forth" of others modding you up or back down just because they like or don't like what you're saying.
Instead, I just wanted to say that you're absolutely right. Working in I.T. for 30 years now, I've seen a lot of things change. But the nature of people really doesn't. There are plenty of jobs that can be done from home, but too many people are now assuming that what companies did as a desperate move during a world
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you're 100% wrong because if you had been paying any attention at all while allegedly working for AT&T at their offices, you'd have seen the communication breakdowns first hand and been witness to countless delays and fuckups despite having massive offices and conference rooms in which to schedule meetings. Every large organization suffers from this problem and being in an office actually makes these problems worse due to the constant delays and workflow interruptions from people who are marc
Mixed Bag (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of the reasons they cite are good, but some, such as childcare costs, are counter-productive to winning the support of their employers, even if they're good arguments to drum up public support.
Employers don't want to pay employees to take care of their own children during work hours.
A lot of these jobs can be done just well from home, but it sounds like the employees are being a little too honest about the reasons. A winning strategy would need to utilize effective tactics. You're not going to persuade management to change their person views of these decision by making heartfelt, humanist arguments about employee well-being.That's only going to result in an HR-style response of documenting steps taken to ensure employee well-being. What they should be doing is making the strongest case that they're more effective workers when they work from home, and focusing only on that. Instead, it seems they have lawyers in charge of the response, throwing everything at the wall to see if anything will stick. But here, everything that doesn't stick is accidental support for the counter-argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Employees with young children spend a not inconsiderable amount of their office time not working, dealing with the hassles of remotely organising the picking up and dropping off of children in daycares and schools and dealing with common but unpredictable minor emergencies. Trying to get an uninterrupted 9-5 for a full 5 days out of such an employee is a laughable pipe dream. By letting them work from home, even part time, sure they are "wasting" company time dealing with their sprogs on the clock, but gene
Re: (Score:2)
You were going good until "sprog," where you just look a moronic neckbeard.
You can almost speak Normal. Good job. Keep trying. You'll sound human soon if you keep practicing!
WTF is going on you worry about "Monkeybox" (Score:2, Insightful)
ongoing concerns over exposure to COVID-19 variants and now monkeybox
You know, if there are giant gay orgies where you work, you do not have to partake. And I assume they are in a meeting room somewhere where you don't have to see them.
Because otherwise I don't see how you are catching the 'box, as the cool kids call it, since 95% of of the people (and dogs) [nbcnews.com] that catch it are sleeping with gay men.
That said I am fully sympathetic otherwise with people who don't want to come in because of commutes, and do n
Re: (Score:2)
Some still call it "cubicle".
Remember AIDs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even ignoring that, since I started working from home I stopped getting sick. I bought a Neti pot 2 years ago, and I used to use one every year but it's been sitting in a closet since then. That's a huge productivity boost. Meanwhile friends of mine that were dragged back into the office by their bosses are dropping like flies. They recover, but they're out for a week or 2. It messes up productivity massively.
Remember that very few Americans have sick leave, and the ones that do often are pressured to go to work anyway.
Then pay an on-site bonus (Score:2)
If the company thinks on-site is worth more, then pay more for on-site days.
I do think it's realistic to require coming in 2 days a week for at least bonding reasons, but beyond that is usually diminishing returns. If they really want 3+, then just pay a bonus for such days. Seems simple, what am I missing?
Re: (Score:3)
Bonding reasons? I hate humans. With a passion. I actually started liking some of the people I have to communicate on a daily base during the lockdown phases because I not only didn't have to see them but I could also turn them off when they got annoying (don't try that in real life, my lawyer said it's illegal).
If anything, having to see their mug twice a week makes me hate them again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was hoping for more. But I have my hopes up for Covid to flare up when the schools start again and then of course Winter, should give us enough cases now that people got complacent and think it's over.
Maybe a new variant that sends people to hospitals again, Omicron was pretty much a dud in that regard. And if people don't clog ICUs, lockdowns remain a dream.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I choose people to be around. I can't choose who I am around at work. The intersection between people I can stand and people I work with is surprisingly small.
Re: (Score:2)
The jerk:sane ratio isn't good enough to warrant the expense of time and nerves. I'd rather search sensible people to spend my time with in my spare time.
Re:Then pay an on-site bonus (Score:4, Insightful)
Having 2 days a week eliminates many of the benefits of working from home at all...
You still need to live within commuting distance, you still need your transportation available, or if you're using public transport you will have to pay more for the 2 days as there's usually discounts for weekly/monthly tickets.
Work from home full time, sell your car, sell your expensive house in the city and move to a small town where you can get a much nicer house for half the price and walk to local establishments, anything you can't buy locally you can have delivered.
Or if you can't work from home, live somewhere within walking distance of where you work.
The biggest waste of time and energy is having thousands of people commute to dense office zones at the same time because they simply cant (or cant afford) live nearby.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the company thinks on-site is worth more, then pay more for on-site days.
WFH people already complain that they are missing out on office parties, lunches, and other perks because they are at home. I am sure people would instantly complain that they are being discriminated against if their office counterparts got more pay.
I agree with you, by the way. I prefer the office to WFH. It's nice and quiet and I can actually get work done here.
We can tell customers no from home (Score:2)
Certainly, ATT workers do not need an office to tell you no, to be unhelpful, and generally make you wish ATT did not exist. This can definitely be accomplished from anywhere.
If ATT actually cared about its customers then forcing employees to the office wouldn't be on their radar.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't think ATT even had employees in this country any more. Certainly when you call them on the phone for service you get routed to another country. I had to call back three times before I could get someone that I could actually hear between their complete non-grasp on English and the garbage quality of the connection. Their whole job is communications and they are completely inept at it.
Monkeypox? (Score:3, Insightful)
They're worried about acquiring monkeypox? Are these folks having anal sex while at work? Or sex at all while at work, because that's how you get monkeypox.
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly haha!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is the primary way monkeypox spreads. Through direct, close, personal contact [cdc.gov] (i.e. sex). Potentially, if someone who was infected sneezed and some droplets got on you [uchealth.org], there might be a possibility of you contracting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Potentially, if someone who was infected sneezed and some droplets got on you, there might be a possibility of you contracting it.
I'm sure glad that's not an easy way for infections to spread in a workplace.
Many monkeys on the board so be carefull (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well... why do you go to the office? There ain't really any other reason anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow ATT sounds like it must be a lot more fun to work at than I had guessed
monkeybox is dangerous! (Score:1)
Teh monkeys get out of that box and there will be hell to pay.
Why is AT&T leaving boxes of monkeys around in the workplace in the first place ?!
Re: (Score:2)
Monkeybox? You kids and your fancy words for everything. We old folks called them cubicles.
Managers are feeling useless (and they are) (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a simple case of all the middle-level managers realising that teams don't need them to do the job, and they are panicking.
Re: (Score:2)
Who gave the worthless middle manager mod points? You're wasting valuable resources on space occupiers.
Time to sell AT&T stock (Score:3)
A company willing to risk losing many of its best staff - who will be the ones to leave if this is enforced against their will - is going to damage itself. The only question is by how much.
Re: (Score:2)
Their best staff is already back in the office or on to better jobs..
Re: (Score:2)
Their best staff is probably still there, but they are the ones that can easiest bail if you try to shove them back into the chicken coop. Good people are hunted down by headhunters, and if you try to force them into something they don't like, them flipping you off on the way out is all you get.
Re:Time to sell AT&T stock (Score:4, Interesting)
It was time last year when AT&T said ‘White People, You are the Problem’
https://news.yahoo.com/t-emplo... [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The only question is why we continue to let the career criminals run AT&T when they have already literally stolen hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money when they were handed it to build out the last mile, and didn't.
Mmmmmm...NO (Score:2)
"And now that we are a largely vaccinated workforce, we believe it's safe for employees to return to the workplace. We do our best work when we're together."
Fuck off, you pukebag. We're not going back to the office.
*I* do *MY* best work when I'm well rested and not being forced to commute to a place I don't need or want to be.
Re: (Score:3)
I bet it was said by some upper-level manager who never spent a day working in close contact with any of the people he now expects to get back to the chicken coop. Sorry, open-floor office.
I can just as easily contract monkeypox at home (Score:2)
So why bother going to the office?
"We can do the same job from home", so can India (Score:3)
The typical PHB-style management response to "we can do the same job from home" would be then someone in India can also do your job from their home.
My response was, "you are welcomed to try". Not to mention the fact that, somehow, "need to come to office to collaborate" was never a consideration in the last 20 years when loads of office jobs were being outsourced to India, NOW you try to tell me that was important? Fxxk off!
Re: (Score:2)
What about "temporary" is so hard to grasp? (Score:2)
Commuting sucks, I agree. That's why I took a job that pays $20-30,000 less than I could be making because I only have a 10 minute drive instead of an hour's worth of Atlanta traf
Re: (Score:2)
Life involves hard choices. Shut up and make them.
Why should they shut up? It's certainly the employer's prerogative to make policies including telecommuting rules, but at the same time it's certainly they employee's right to express their opinions on those policies.
You say you don't care, but then you're telling people to shut up about it, so you obviously care at least a bit. Maybe because you're afraid that the employees that chose to speak up instead of shut up might end up getting a better deal than you did when you took a less-lucrative job?
Re: (Score:2)
Haha. Work? (Score:2)
Haha. A friend recently got a government job that she can do from "home." It literally takes her about 15 minutes to do the work assigned for the day. She doesn't ask for more because she does not want to be murdered by her co-workers. She can do it at home, or anywhere else. Of course people would rather work at "home" so the uberbosses don't see how unproductive everyone is.
Re:Why should they have special protection? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty simple: People that can have this protection should have it. Or are you advocating that just because there are some risky jobs, nobody deserves a safe job? That would be really, really stupid, also because it does not make the ones with risky jobs one bit saver. It just makes the overall situation a lot worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Some jobs are risky, dirty, or difficult. So they pay more.
So if you want a job that is safe, clean, and easy, you should expect to be paid less.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody gives a shit if your job is dirty, smelly, dangerous or difficult. What it boils down to in a capitalist world is supply and demand. Can you find someone doing that job for cheaper? Great, then replace me.
If you can't, cough up the dough.
Re: (Score:3)
100% this. I set the terms for my employment. Some employers walk away, others accept it. To date I've never been unemployed. Capitalism seems just fine with me working on my own terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism works if supply and demand are in balance. It usually isn't in the work market. I can see the need for interference, but I also think that if both sides can reach a fair agreement, obviously without undue pressure (e.g. because the conditions are way, way more favorable for the usually victimized side than in the average contract), it should be permitted to engage in a mutually interesting agreement.
In my country, working nights is usually something that is reserved to certain jobs where night sh
Re: (Score:2)
Just like the company, 100% replaceable. Hasn't stopped me from making a great living. This is capitalism 101, if you do not like the terms, go find something else.
Re: (Score:2)
There is always some excuse as to why people think the exact thing I've been doing for over 20 years doesn't work. The fact is, I make a great living and have never been impacted by my decision to treat my employer like they treat me ( a disposable tool to meet my goals ).
Re: (Score:2)
Ask the rest of them that left that dystopia and went to create or work at startups. I'm so sick if hearing how we are all victims. Get a remote job, move to a lower cost of living place, enjoy the 5000sq ft home you can buy and your 300k+ paycheck. You want more? Go start a company or invent something!
Re: (Score:2)
So by your logic someone who mows lawns should be paid more than a doctor working in a semiconductor fab.
Re: (Score:2)
so to clear, you're advocating that most 9-5 office jobs should be paid less than the people who collect trash?
Re: (Score:2)
Look, AT&T already outsources it's jobs, past and present to foreign countries. It's one of the last companies on the list that should be "returning to the office"
You know what's a great way to save money and liability for a company? Let everyone work from home, and don't outsource to foreign companies that aren't subject to your countries privacy laws. If you want to go one extra step, require that home workers have a separate space (eg a "den" or "extra bedroom") for their work computer and resources.
Re:Why should they have special protection? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, from now on everyone must do night shifts or 12 hour shifts, and must do them either in very thick and heavy fire retardant clothing or in super expensive suits, whichever is the most intrusive for that person, cause really why should anyone be shielded from these adversities.
This is the dumbest fucking argument ever. Life isn't fair, not everyone has to be brought down to the exact same working conditions. Those conditions are job dependent. Do you think the people that have to go to a place of work are more pissed that others don't have to or more pissed that the thousands and thousands that could but aren't are now clogging up the roads making their commutes longer unnecessarily. There are 2 sides to every coin, and I would think people would rather take the option of less people around them clogging up the resources they could be using quicker so that even if they are required to go somewhere for work, having more people at home makes the commuters time lessened in all facets
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, when did "fair" enter the job market? Is it "fair" that I make about 5 times that of guy breaking his back laying bricks by sitting in a comfy chair? Is it "fair" that some CEO makes 100 times more than that guy sitting around having "visions"?
"Fair" doesn't apply. We're talking work, not sports.
Re: (Score:2)
It is fair if people who wished to support you gave up luxuries to acquire the resources needed to get you higher pay
The only people this would apply to is my parents. Who are now living comfortably from a pension I pay for, because that's our pension system works.
It is fair if you used access to resources to acquire skills and knowledge that provided more value or were underrepresented.
I used the same access to the same resources everyone can access. Our school system is not for-profit, everyone can study at pretty much the same conditions here. Getting in is easy, getting a degree isn't, because everyone and their dog can try, so they weed out mercilessly. It doesn't really get more fair than that.
It is fair if you elected to take on work based on compensation you agreed with.
If I'm not gang-pressed into accepting becaus
Re: (Score:2)
I have to clean up my office carpet myself, wash the coffee cups and dishes myself and have to clean my desk myself.
I live alone and I don't have cleaning staff.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've answered your own question. Different jobs have different risk profiles, a soldier might get sent into combat and be shot at by enemies wanting to kill him, whereas most other jobs don't involve going face to face with armed adversaries trying to kill you.
Forcing someone to waste time and money travelling to a place they don't need to be is just stupid, and utterly irresponsible given the environmental impact. Everyone who can work remotely should be given the opportunity to do so, while thos
Re: (Score:2)
most other jobs don't involve going face to face with armed adversaries trying to kill you.
This is the great United States of America. We live under constant threat from armed adversaries trying to kill us because ... Freedom!
Re: (Score:2)
You are the very definition of a Hater.
Re:Then QUIT! (Score:5, Funny)
If you don't like their way of doing business, by being in the office, then QUIT and go to work for someone who will let you work from home. It's not YOUR company, YOU don't get to set the rules.
Found the Agile-certified, 6-Sigma, HCISPP mid-level manager
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to call them "paid pervs".
Re:Then QUIT! (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, let's just think about this a moment, keep the job while you negotiate being able to work from home, and then quit if negotiations fail, preferably after you've found work for someone who will let you work from home. Kind of like these workers are doing now.
I know, as a manager it's such a hassle to be asked to negotiate with your employees, rather than simply telling them to shut up and dictating what they can and can't do from your internal first principles. But you're literally being paid gobs of money to do that, and with a 3.5% unemployment rate they actually can quit.
It's not, and I can, just as much as I can set the salary, the hours, the timing and amount of vacation, and the like. They're terms of employment subject to negotiation, and the tens of thousands that you'll spend on replacing me -- if you can find a timely and sufficiently experienced replacement -- give me leverage in that negotiation.
How's that been working for you for the past year and a half? Not so well?
I think employers that think otherwise are kicking your ass in hiring new employees, and that's assuming that you are even in that position to begin with. I don't see a copier/printer/fax technician having much say in office HR.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't want that. Because all you will have left is only the people who can't get a job somewhere else.
People want quality of life these days. I noticed some time ago that they even can't pay me less than I need to live, so I basically cost now about 50% of what I could ask for. The other 50% is "my way or the highway", and, lo and behold, companies are quite willing to jump a few hoops to save 6 figures a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, yes...yes I do get to set the rules by which my employer has to play because I work in a field that has been in perpetually high demand since before COVID-19 was a thing and I have 17+ years of experience in the field. I'm constantly getting requests from recruiters for job opportunities and that hasn't shown any signs of slowing down.
My rules are simple. I work from home 100% of the time with no travel or commute requirements. This is not negotiable. If at any point during my tenure this becomes
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of them. Only the ones that can find another job and have enough drive and energy left to do it. He does retain the slackers, the unqualified and the ones who already internally quit, i.e. the ones that can't find another job or simply stopped caring where they drag their corpse every day.
You know, those valuable workers you really, really want to retain...
Re:OK, I'll start: stop yer whining and get in her (Score:5, Informative)
The facts don't really back you up on that one. Masks are effective at reducing the spread of the virus which was very important when we didn't have a vaccine or effective treatments. The distancing and sanitizing was more before it was known how it spread (a good idea to be cautious).
But I guess a few businesses getting a slightly better bottom line is more important than millions of deaths.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
the cloth/surgical masks do nothing
That is a lie that has been debunked [nature.com] over [cdc.gov] an over [pnas.org] again [nature.com].
Now stop spreading dangerous lies!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Nature isn't know for being one of the top scientific journals on the planet or anything.
Perhaps you'd rather something more rigorous, like a comment on a mommy blog, or an off-hand tweet from someone who's sister once worked as a nurse's aid?
Re: (Score:3)
That's incorrect [cdc.gov]. If you have any credible studies that prove they do nothing, please pass those on to your local hospital
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: "No fair! I had to commute all day and sit in a sweaty office with people who don't shower, why should others have it better than me just because there's no reason anymore to stuff them into a noisy office?"
Re: (Score:3)
Man, just you wait until the productivity loss combines with inflation. You ain't see nothin' like that in your lifetime. I have.
What makes you different here? Age? Geographic location?
Hallucinogens? :-D
I mean, very little in that post had any resemblance to reality. Not the anti-mask rant, not the anti-distancing rant, not the... okay, so the plastic shields probably are mostly useless, so I guess that's one valid point out of half a dozen....
The claim about the productivity loss is also crap. For the most part, businesses that moved to working from home saw a slight drop in productivity at first, while they got used to it, but then actually saw productivity gains, on average, largely
Re: (Score:2)
And for a change they can suck my cock.
Figuratively only, of course. I don't even want personal contact with them, let alone that intimate one.
Payback's a bitch, and those last 2 years were the BEST in my lifetime. If only to see them suffer for a change.
Re: (Score:2)
And for a change they can suck my cock.
Great, that's how you get the monkeypox.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Extroverts are withering (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a clip passed around of a zoom/teams meeting from some google-like org where all the 20-somethings began by talking about the "difficulties" and "stresses" they face due to isolation. All managers and team leaders, no implementers. These were not people coping well with lockdowns. Given that many introverts have suffered death by a thousand cuts from all of the forced interaction that seems to come from institutional extroverts from school on up all done for "their own good" it's understandable that they are taking some pleasure in the schadenfreude now that the tables have turned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Until the C-Levels realize that middle management is useless and got fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Take note that the parent post claims that businesses are "RAPING EMPLOYEES QUITE LITERALLY" yet isn't marked Flamebait or Troll. Apparently moderation is now reserved to cancel disfavored points of view, not to weed out egregious comments. You can talk trash all day on slashdot, and as long as it's the right kind of trash, no problemo. Just take a look down feed.
Re: (Score:3)