IBM To Managers: Move Near an Office or Leave Company (bloomberg.com) 182
IBM delivered a companywide ultimatum to managers who are still working remotely: move near an office or leave the company. From a report: All US managers must immediately report to an office or client location at least three days a week "regardless of current work location status," according to a memo sent on Jan. 16 viewed by Bloomberg. Badge-in data will be used to "assess individual presence" and shared with managers and human resources, Senior Vice President John Granger wrote in the note. Those working remotely, other than employees with exceptions such as medical issues or military service, who don't live close enough to commute to a facility must relocate near an IBM office by the start of August, according to the memo. Managers who don't agree to relocate and are unable to secure a role that's approved to be remote must "separate from IBM," Granger wrote.
Will they get Badge-in data from an client locatio (Score:3, Interesting)
Will they get Badge-in data from an client location?
What if the manager is not on local client day to day list?
managers who may cover lot's of clients in an big area that may make being at one client location 3 days a week?
Will they cover travel and expense for an manager to visit of the clients each month?
Re: (Score:3)
Does having a virtual meeting with a client qualify as being on-site at a client?
I've not once had a customer want to have an on-site meeting when a virtual one will do. The exception would be all-day training or working within a facility (eg. a datacenter install).
I'm sure IBM customers aren't going to like having IBM folks at their (mostly empty) office spaces...
Re: Will they get Badge-in data from an client loc (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What if the client is doing WFH? Is the manager assigned to the client still required to go to client site?
So many questions......
Unemployment benefits (Score:2)
Employment is at-will.
To a point. When an employer makes substantial changes to its employment conditions, state regulations may deem affected employees justified in quitting and therefore eligible for unemployment benefits. How much is IBM willing to pay people not to work?
Re: (Score:2)
It's called constructive dismissal where I live.
Re: Unemployment benefits (Score:3)
Right - and that was almost certainly considered by HR before sending a corporate-wide policy change / ultimatum.
IBM doesn't exactly have a reputation of understaffing their legal department, or shooting from hip (or breathing too loudly) without consulting the lawyers.
Doesn't mean they will not end up paying benefits, but either they calculated their odds are better or projected the cost / benefits (pun intended) are still worth it.
Re: Does it matter? (Score:3)
I don't like IBM, so if this makes that company go belly-up I wouldn't really feel sorry.
Re: Does it matter? (Score:4, Funny)
Job Openings at IBM (Score:3, Interesting)
IBM wants to force employees back to the office. Why?
The last few years have proven that an office presence isn't necessary for business to continue profitably. Otherwise, IBM would already be in dire straits.
80's mentality applied to the 20's. Wise move, IBM. Good luck with that recruiting drive.
Re:Job Openings at IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
Its a lay off without laying people off. Potentially also legal age discrimination since only managers are being told to do this who are generally older than non-managers.
I remember IBM coming in and telling a bunch of people near retirement before they were outsourced "Only 50% of IBMers have been with the company more than 5 years" as if that was a positive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep. That's exactly it. This move is designed to drive people out of the company. IBM is always terminating US employees in favor of overseas cheap labor. This move just makes it easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The last few years have proven that an office presence isn't necessary
No such thing has been "proven". There has been evidence in both directions. The jury is out, but many big companies have looked at the evidence and decided they want people back in the office, at least some of the time.
for business to continue profitably.
Businesses don't strive to earn just enough profit to stay in business. They strive to maximize profit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The last few years have proven that an office presence isn't necessary
No such thing has been "proven". There has been evidence in both directions.
Very likely because some jobs work better in person, and other jobs are fine remote.
But the arguments on slashdot seem to always assume all jobs are alike.
Re: (Score:3)
As a former IT person that ended up becoming a professional janitor (and consequently ending up with better pay, benefits, hours, pension, and work life balance) I find amusement in seeing what is "normal" or " average" to a lot of the people that post here.
Re: Job Openings at IBM (Score:2)
Slashdot assume it is common knowledge there are only three types of careers:
- Software developers writing code
- People learning code to become software developers
*sometimes* part-time while working on some less important job (police, doctors, aeronautics safety inspector) because the world is unfair and we do not have Universal Income yet.
- Uneducated masses who do not yet understand how learning code would improve their life and make them a better person.
As a group we are alw
Re: (Score:2)
IBM wants to force employees back to the office. Why?
They want to "maximize" productivity and are mad about how difficult it is to do when everyone is at home.
Let say they give you a task on a Monday with a deadline of EOD the following Monday, but you finish that task by early Thursday morning. Without any motivation to do so, the company wants you channel your inner Oliver Twist and be all begging to your manager with cries of "Please sir, may I have some more?"
If you're in the office you have to at least make an effort to look busy when you're not, but wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but when you're at home you can sit with your laptop next to you and simply wait until EOD Monday to hand it in and just enjoy a couple days of relaxing
People do this in offices too. The amount of times i've seen office workers on random sites (eg facebook) all day.
The same people who finish early and get to relax will also work later sometimes if they need to, give and take balances out, but they won't stay late if they need to catch a train to get home.
Re: (Score:2)
Wise move, IBM.
And Google. And Facebook. And Nvidia. And Apple. And everyone else.
The last few years have proven that an office presence isn't necessary for business to continue profitably.
Based on what now? Pretty much every company that can force employees back in the office without losing them is doing so.
Companies like money, and real estate is expensive. If they could get the same or better productivity having employees foot the bill for real estate they would. When it comes to money, there's no way these things happen on the whim of some "80s" thinking. Companies have armies of bean counters that evaluate this sort of t
Re: (Score:2)
You may be locked into the sunk cost fallacy, but they don't have to be. And IBM shareholders don't give a crap - at all - about percentage of leased space in active use. Nobody is asking them to justify it, nor should they.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand all of that. I said exactly two things - and neither of them are impacted at all by any of it.
The shareholders do not care at all about leased space utilization, and the fact that they've invested in it is not meaningful as to whether they should use it or not.
You went a long way to explain things not important to my post.
Re: Job Openings at IBM (Score:2)
Huh? Where do you get your info from? Maybe general shareholders don't, but major and preferred share holders do!
It falls under operational overhead which everyone is always trying to thin down. Worse, it's usually under "Additional Operational Expenses" (unlike factory & retail sqft). Rent shows up as wasted expense that directly impacts that year's profits and shareholder equity. Owned real estate is an asset that is seen as "unleveraged". It also increases the risk of a buy out by a PEF which no
Re: (Score:2)
Unused directly owned assets are unproductive and thus contribute nothing but cost to the bottom line. You have to pay to maintain, insure, and protect them.
An empty office will still cost less - less utility use, less maintenance, lower insurance because there's nothing there to steal, noone around to get injured etc.
If you invested a lot into commercial real estate then you made a bad investment, it happens. Investing is gambling and you lost.
There is a severe shortage of homes in many places, converting office space into apartments is a good way to recoup some of the cost.
Re:Job Openings at IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM wants to force employees back to the office. Why?
Because you don't get the same value out of your employees when they are disconnected from the workplace. They are less motivated, less connected, less involved.
BS. Not all employees are extroverts that thrive in a social environment. Those who are introverts (and that's at least a quarter of the population) are far more productive in environments in which the exhausting, energy-sapping social interactions are kept down to a minimum. The traditional office is tantamount to torture for such individuals. When are you people going to learn those simple facts?
Re:Job Openings at IBM (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
BS. Not all employees are extroverts that thrive in a social environment.
Whether you're an intro- or extrovert, you need to have professional conversations with others. Even if you're self employed you still need to communicate with clients.
And some of those introverts cannot carry on intelligent & productive conversations so matter what ... too hooked on their cellphones.
Re: (Score:3)
We have the technology to do that over vast distances now. You might have heard about this cutting edge technology. I think they call it "telephone" or something like that.
Re: (Score:3)
Whether you're an intro- or extrovert, you need to have professional conversations with others.
Absolutely. In slack, or webex. My coworkers do not sit in the same cities, timezones or even country.
The office is for badging, going to the gym, and going home to do work.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm 50, that ship has sailed. I do like to be home with my wife, go to lunch with her, and have some peace and quiet before the kids come home though.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you're an intro- or extrovert, you need to have professional conversations with others. Even if you're self employed you still need to communicate with clients.
Alexander Bell demonstrated the first telephone call from New York to Chicago in 1892; over 130 years ago.
Re: Job Openings at IBM (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine that's mostly fiction.
Re: Job Openings at IBM (Score:4, Informative)
You do know that brainstorming has been shown time and time again to be utterly useless, right?
Re:Job Openings at IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
Doing a good brainstorming is harder from home, because no matter how good your video conference system is, as soon as more than one people is talking, you lose the sound entirely.
This is a good thing! Can't tell you how many times large group "brainstorm" sessions tended to be dominated by a couple of loudmouths or social butterflies, now they're forced to listen when someone's talking about their idea instead of just jumping in with their louder voice to tell you how it won't work because they'd made a snap decision before hearing the whole thing yet.
Now our sessions tend to be more fruitful as the people who often got drowned out in the crowded meeting room get a chance to contribute.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your sessions were poorly run. A manager should be clamping down on the big mouths and making space for the quiet people.
Re:Job Openings at IBM (Score:4, Interesting)
Because you don't get the same value out of your employees when they are disconnected from the workplace. They are less motivated, less connected, less involved.
Quite the opposite. Let's compare an average work day at the office with one in a home office.
At the office, you arrive around 9 after an hour in traffic. First thing, get a coffee. Be chatted to by someone else who gets one, then have some conversation with another coworker who stops you on the way back to your desk to ask about some nonsense you couldn't care less about. Around 10, you start working, interrupted by the usual drivel going on around you. 11:30 you leave for lunch and with a hint of luck, you're even back around 12:30 after driving there 15 minutes, waiting another 15 minutes for your food, having 15 minutes to wolf down the junk so you can drive back 15 minutes to be at your desk. You're pretty much useless 'til about 1pm because your body is busy trying to sort out the stomach cramps from the hastily eaten lunch. You get another coffee, running the same gauntlet that you already did in the morning so you can finally start to get something meaningful done around 2. Around 4, your stomach starts complaining about slowly getting hungry again. You somehow manage to waste another hour before you say "fuck it" and drive home.
Now let's take a look at home office.
At 8, you stroll down into the office room and start working. Maybe pick up a coffee on the way so you're ready to start at about 8:15. You work 'til about noon, get some food from the fridge and eat it at the office desk while reading your mails, then you continue to work. Around 4, you start feeling a bit hungry, so fridge it is again, maybe while listening to some meeting where you're just there because you have to be anyway. Yes, otherwise you could work, but that way you can at least pretend you're listening. You continue working and notice around 8pm that you're still working, then quickly close the computer because you actually wanted to get some decent dinner before bedtime.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone who needs to "socialize" in the company to be considered important needs to be fired. I don't need schmoozers, I need workers.
Re: (Score:3)
Many people lose most of their motivation after an hour long commute.
Welp that's a layoff (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure makes sense to fire people for what is working and potentially eke out that extra
For 2024, Krishna said the company expects revenue to grow in the mid-single digits while generating $12 billion in free cash flow.
This is from their earnings call last week too: https://www.investors.com/news... [investors.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that a company that grows cannot perform any better?
Re: (Score:3)
Not by doing things which are unpopular with staff no.
The best will leave because they can easily get another remote job elsewhere. The least useful ones will go back to the office because they fear being fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure makes sense to fire people for what is working and potentially eke out that extra .2% earning.
Except that doesn't happen. Slashdot had an article from just today showing that butts-in-seats is no better than working from home. Die, IBM, DIE!
IBM forgot its own inventions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Mainframes were designed to have remote terminals, which allowed you to work in a different place.
If a worker does something without a manager breathing down their necks and looking over their shoulder, was the work ever done at all? We all know the truth, but in the era we live in, truth and facts mean very, very little. What matters is management's feelings and instincts. And their feeling are hurt they don't have anyone to shove around during the day-to-day, and their instincts are telling them it's harder to intimidate remote workers. *BAM* Must come back to the office for, uh, productivity initiati
Basically it sounds like (Score:2)
IBM doesn't really believe in their own product.
Re: (Score:2)
IBM doesn't really believe in their own product.
What is IBM's product again these days?
Re: (Score:2)
IBM doesn't really believe in their own product.
What is IBM's product again these days?
Consultants.
Re: (Score:2)
Does IBM even make those anymore? Does IBM make anything anymore?
Who still uses IBM? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Who still uses IBM? (Score:2)
Government is still a heavy IBM user.
Re:Who still uses IBM? (Score:5, Interesting)
The short answer is mostly locked in clients. Also Red Hat customers now, since IBM bought them. I chuckle when I go to get a state inspection and see the oil change place's point of sale is focused around an 3270 terminal emulator. Also, I remember a car dealership or two where they were plopping the numbers into an 3270 hosted application. I don't think anyone starting a *new* endeavor will choose mainframe, but there's plenty of relatively ancient choices still in play.
Fun anecdote, I know someone who has worked at Red Hat for years. Before IBM bought them, he had never ever touched a mainframe. After acquisition by IBM, his job was changed to basically "mainframe-ify" various RedHat projects and his job is now entirely mainframe focused, to try to let their mainframe customers know they aren't missing out of any of this 'cool new open source technology the kids are talking about'
IBM is of course not just mainframe, but generally that's their holy grail of a technology segment done right for them: lock in with minimal competitive pressure. Other segments they tend to at least *act* like they have mainframe level lock in. If that play doesn't seem to work out in a particular business unit, they shut down, sell off, or spin off that business.
Re: (Score:2)
WebSphere on AIX is the only encounter with IBM hardware/software in my professional life... But I have always worked at the SOHO / small business level of IT.
I think they are still pretty big in the retail space even if you don't see that many IBM point of sale devices anymore.
Re:Who still uses IBM? (Score:4, Interesting)
IBM sold point of sale business to Toshiba 12 years ago. If you see IBM point of sale in the wild, it's over a decade old.
I did find it rather bold to name your product line "SurePOS"
Re: (Score:2)
In 25+ years in tech, I've never seen IBM being actively used in any environment. The old saying early in my career was "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM," but by that time it had changed to "Nobody ever got fired for buying Dell," because nobody was buying IBM. Am I missing something or is IBM just running a bunch of legacy clients/enterprise environments that have decades old vendor lock-in?
Big ERP systems still use a lot of IBM iron.
Re: (Score:3)
I've seen it in a couple places (healthcare, mostly) and I've worked for an MSP that worked primarily as an IBM reseller of services/equipment. There's a lot of IBM still in banking, finance, and energy, as well as other large legacy industries. Basically, for the businesses that got into computing early on and started using mainframes early on, they're still using a lot of those same technologies. Plenty of IBM mainframes out there running LPARs with poorly performing Linux distros on them.
Re: (Score:2)
IBM also tend to have great support for their hardware. We had a 12-year-old server and we could still get parts for it when they failed. Other companies' products had failures with they were 3 years' old and the hardware had to be replaced because the company couldn't supply parts.
So they have that going for them. But you pay for that. IBM know how to charge! You can get a product that will be support for as long as you use it, or you can get a cheap product. Pick one.
Re: (Score:2)
Years ago I worked in a data center that used the IBM System 360. I liked the fact that from the operator console I could adjust what percent of the cpu cycles an application was allowed to use. Software hogging the cpu could be throttled back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Who still uses IBM? (Score:3)
They are growing their Federal contracting business
Well that simplifies the decision! (Score:2)
How much do IBM employees love their jobs? Now they have to decide. Put up or shut up.
I would very much love to learn what percentage just walk away.
Re: Well that simplifies the decision! (Score:2, Troll)
"How much do IBM employees love their jobs?"
IME between very little and not at all. Can't you tell from their output?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess you are right, but they probably like the pay rate.
I don't really know anything about their output, I've not been directly involved in IBM business dealings.
Re: Well that simplifies the decision! (Score:2)
I have worked for IBM, no doubt unlike the person who modded me down, and I never met a single person who wasn't in sales who was excited about it.
Oops, too much real estate on the books (Score:2)
Can't be seen as not needing it, that would look like they misjudged. So time to start cracking the whip.
Disgusting (Score:4, Informative)
The trend of companies trying to push employees out while at the same time trying to not providing severance is, frankly, disgusting.
The bias shown against remote workers is both irrational and discriminatory. I'd be curious if they've done any sort of study as to the efficacy of remote workers before doing this RIF.
Meanwhile, study after study shows that remote workers are up to 30% more productive on average than in-office workers (often while working fewer hours). We've got foreign (to the US) companies now trying to gobble up top talent in the US to work remote roles, too - even at full rate, it's cheaper than paying the equivalent person in eg. Europe.
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Informative)
The "funny" part is that IBM already took measures to mitigate severance:
"IBM has severely cut severance pay to one month total, no matter how many years of service the employee worked"
So to review:
-IBM hasn't kept pace with base salary
-IBM bonus structure has always been unreliable, low at best, and the criteria used are decided *after* the year is done to rationalize whatever bonus decision they wanted to do.
-IBM used to have a compelling stock purchase plan, which they canned for something useless
-IBM used to 401k match, now they don't
-IBM capped severance at 1 month (you used to be able to count on up to 6 months with enough time in)
-IBM canceled the patent bonus program
-IBM is telling people to come in 3 days a week or they are going to lose their job, even people who have been remote for decades.
So the takeaway is obviously IBM never wants anyone to ever work for them again, and would really like all their current employees to quit. If they can get rid of all those pesky employees, they can just have pure profit... Amazing thing is a fair amount of their customers might not even notice the difference if updates and product changes stopped happening.
Re: (Score:2)
So the takeaway is obviously IBM never wants anyone to ever work for them again, and would really like all their current employees to quit.
Eventually, IBM will be the perfect company, having achieved corporate purity — no employees, no products, and a boatload of money.
Re: (Score:2)
All of the above is true. IBM doesn't want any more US employees. They only want to hire in Bangalore going forward.
Only as long as one Bangalore-minute of buzz-wording is still cheaper than one minute of LLM-generated buzz-wording. Then they'll try doing business without employees entirely.
AT&T is doing the same thing (Score:3)
It's just not making the news much.
Relocate or quit.
https://coincodex.com/article/... [coincodex.com]
https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1q... [thelayoff.com]
It's a shit show. I don't work there but know someone that does (until pension benefit date if they can make it).
Seems pretty passive aggressive (Score:2)
Look, IBM, if you want to be all 1980s-style and rigidly demand butts in seats, that’s fine. It’s your company. You set the rules. Man up, grow a pair, and FIRE THE PEOPLE YOU DONT WANT WORKING FOR YOU. This namby-pamby “ waaahhhhh you better be here or we’ll report yooouuuuuuuu to HHHrRRRRrrrrr” is pretty weak looking.
28 US states
Re: Seems pretty passive aggressive (Score:2)
IBM has a relocation policy, so that would also cost them money... If they changed it then many of the people they want to retain would start looking elsewhere immediately.
Re: (Score:3)
IBM has a relocation policy, so that would also cost them money... If they changed it then many of the people they want to retain would start looking elsewhere immediately.
I hadn't heard of one in years. I left in 2008 when I was told to move from Chicago to Dubuque for the data center there. No relocation package was offered. And to add injury to insult, they were going to reduce my salary for "Cost of Living" adjustment. I asked my boss for a voluntary separation package instead if he was given any to reduce his headcount. As luck would have it, my account contract ended and I got a separation.
They're just purging old people (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In IBM's case, a number of office sites have closed and they had residual employees from those sites hang on as remote employees.
They also have a lot of folks whose career was based on travelling like 80-90% of the time and it just made zero sense for them to be based anywhere in particular relative to their work.
During the pandemic, I know quite a few people who pulled the trigger on starting their planned "retirement lifestyle" and moved somewhere well away from their "site". I'd imagine IBM has a fair s
Re: (Score:2)
Except these are managers, which skew older.
They did this like 14 years ago same thing, forced everyone to relocate to near one of their geoplex locations, and if you didn't you were quitting. Mostly affected people with families and houses.
Re: (Score:2)
Except these are managers, which skew older.
They did this like 14 years ago same thing, forced everyone to relocate to near one of their geoplex locations, and if you didn't you were quitting. Mostly affected people with families and houses.
As I understand it, there is a three-prong legal framework for adjudication of discriminatory workplace policies and tools. The court hears argument/evidence to find three facts:
1) The policy or tool discriminates - whether intentionally or unintentionally (through a disparate impact regardless of its surface neutrality).
2) The policy or tool serves a legitimate business need essential for proper functioning. (No men in spandex shorts and bare midriff are hired at Hooters.)
3) There is no alternative policy
Lots of old folks took advantage of COVID (Score:2)
Stop beating a dead click-baited horse. (Score:4, Insightful)
Fire thyself (Score:2)
IBM c-series and 99% of those claiming to be "important".... please do the right thing and eliminate the root cause of the problem.
Sincerely, "the people who made you all that money"
Re: (Score:2)
They could run IBM on the patents alone for decades if they weren't being asshats. They've been selling off divisions for decades. They had 433k workers in 2012, now they've got half that.
I sense on opportunity for profit... (Score:3)
Send me your ID card and I'll swipe you in for $10 per swipe!
Stealth Layoffs (Score:3)
They know they can shed 5-10% of their us workforce this way, and they don't have to go through all the paperwork of an actual 'layoff' . Managers first ... then after that they will give the ultimatum to everyone else . IBM has been adrift for years. Waiting for someone like to M$ to buy It's IP and put it out of it's misery.
Move for IBM? (Score:2)
What are the odds that you move for IBM and then get your job moved overseas?
And is that before or after you suffer racist discrimination?
It's bad enough I got suckered into an SX/16 with an MCA bus! That was a shitton of paper route money, just to have to replace it with a Gateway the next year.
Man, what a waste of what could have been.
That's good (Score:2)
The dying dinosaur roars.. (Score:2)
Morons. (Score:2)
Dinosaur (Score:2)
IBM is a dinosaur that deserves to die.
It makes sense (Score:2)
Layoffs disguised as a Return to Office Mandate (Score:2)
This isn't new and IBM certainly isn't alone in the practice.
AT&T is currently doing the exact same thing they did back in January of 2017.
Back then they called it " Collaboration Zones " where they decreed they wanted everyone to be physically located at nine different hub locations around the country. If you were not located near one of them, you were simply laid off. They let people go without any thought to what they did, what value or skills they brought to the Company or what the potential fallo
Re: (Score:2)
There are only 2 things I can point to which might be the underlying motive for these corporate mandates.
1) Corporate real-estate investments and associated local state/city tax incentives to keep people in the office. I've talked about this recently (on slashdot) at length...
2) This one literally just occurred to me as a possibility: WEF-backed "Build Back Better" initiatives linked to DEI and "Smart Cities". Are there any corporate initiatives being funded/pushed by WEF related to Smart Cities/15-minute-c
Re: (Score:2)
if employees were more productive from home, the company wouldn't do this. It's plain and simple numbers. There are also a lot of activities curtailed just by having the employee present around other employees physically.
It assists with security concerns and more, there are literally people working for two companies, while working remotely. They argue 'Well, I do the things I'm asked'. Well, if you're paid hourly, you clearly don't have enough work. If you're in an office, it would be easier for people to see that. Basically, it's the end of people gold bricking pretending the work takes as long as it does and that they're working hard when they're not, and in fact double dipping time at another company.
That's what people are really mad about, not that they're working from home and being incredibly productive. It's all the things the company isn't a fan of that they enjoy that are the issue.
There may have been a story or two about this, but that hardly makes every work-from-home person a culprit. Our company management is just as daft as that assumption though. We caught two people in the entire company clocking in then posting facebook/instagram messages of them out and about town and instead of a reprimand of the individuals fucking around, we all got called back to the office. That's modern thinking. "It happened once! EVERYBODY'S GUILTY!"
Re:Employee productivity and data loss prevention (Score:4, Insightful)
"if employees were more productive from home, the company wouldn't do this. It's plain and simple numbers. "
Employees are more productive from home, this is likely just a quiet layoff.
Re: (Score:2)
"if employees were more productive from home, the company wouldn't do this. It's plain and simple numbers. "
Employees are more productive from home, this is likely just a quiet layoff.
I pretty much agree with your assessment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"if employees were more productive from home, the company wouldn't do this. It's plain and simple numbers. "
Employees are more productive from home, this is likely just a quiet layoff.
It could very well be, but I've seen a few companies with great success stories about working remotely, or even less hours like 6 hour shifts, etc, but I've also heard the complete opposite nightmare fuel from a business perspective allowing people to work remotely.
Anecdotally I absolutely saw a drop in work performance from people working remotely. Kids distracting them, dealing with family etc. Far more away time from their workstations, less work output. This doesn't apply to every person, but it was eno
Re: (Score:2)
Kids distracting them, dealing with family etc.
A lot of this was down to covid, as schools etc were closed too. Otherwise kids are at school and don't disturb your work.
Re: (Score:2)
This was the behavior pre-pandemic I saw in positions that allowed remote workers that we wouldn't call high end. I only had higher end positions for examples of remote work during covid and it actually didn't drop for these employees. Performance was also very measurable due to the nature of the work.
Re: (Score:3)
Many people are more productive at home. They are less stressed, have a better work/life balance, can start work not feeling drained from a commute, and are "at home" at a proper hour so have longer time to spend doing leisure activities. All without working extra hours.
Yes, there are some who don't do anything. But there many that don't do anthing in the office either except drink coffee and chat. And those people make working in an office much more difficult.
I've fewer distractions at home. I don't h