I didn't say "who", I said "what". That can't be your smoking gun in this thread. Because if so you're either crazy enough to think employees *can* dictate company policy, or you just don't even know what you're talking about at this point and hoping to confuse me. Either way, based on that and your opening salvo it seems obvious you woke up today and chose violence, lol.

Except they don't. Ultimately it's in the company's interest to work with employees (which they clearly have or all the employees that are still teleworking against policy would have been fired), but at a certain point they have to weigh the costs to the company and morale and make a decision.

What are you even quoting there? Are you actually suggesting that employees *can* dictate company policy? I don't think you even know what you're talking about at this point.

So your question is why should employees go back to bearing the costs they originally bore when they incurred no compensation reduction at the time of the shift, effectively providing the employee with a net gain for the duration they were on telework? You really need it explained to you why the company is being reasonable when the employee actually came out ahead?

Except I never said that to begin with. I provided an analogy based on your point of view. But good job trying to find a silver lining from your investment in defense of your original off-color comment.

Except they did. The vast majority of employees were onboard at the time of the pandemic onset when the shift to telework took place. You keep ignoring that for some reason. Anyone who came on after and started with full-time telework either has an agreement in place that supports their continued telework, or they're subject to the same company policy as everyone else.

Again, no isn't. If that's the approach you want to take then you're completely ignoring the pay increase they originally incurred when the original shift to telework took place. And who are you (or I) to decide what is adequate? When you own a company, you can decide what is adequate, and your employees can either agree to it, counter, or depart. What you or I think is "adequate" to how Amazon conducts internal operations is meaningless to this conversation.

I explicitly said they should be able to do that. Multiple times. Including my last comment. Literally no one with a reasonable argument is saying that. But at a certain point, the issue has to be put to rest so business can continue. All I'm saying, literally all I'm saying, is as long as the very clear and fair list of conditions I laid out (again, in my most recent comment) are met, there's no legal/justification in my mind for the company not to enforce said policy if it decides to.

At this point I can only assume you're incapable of acknowledging a flawed point of view as I've been asking very specific questions related to this and you've been answering anything but. Let's try this one last time and your answer (or no answer) will let me know either way. I've already conceded an employee can and should ask for what they want, but if an employer has a right to make a change to operations (as established by existing/previous policy), does not contradict any existing employees contractual allowances, is provided to said employees with appropriate time to adjust, and failure to enforce across the board creates morale strain within the company...why would you fault the company for enforcing said policy and why would you imply like you did in your opening comment that you can't wrap your brain around others sharing a similar sentiment?

I don't understand your response. You said you didn't "get" me or the poeple that upvoted my comment, so I've been trying to explain my point of view. I just provided you a perfect analogy. You either agree an employee can dictate policy (that has been established is within the employer's right to modify) at this point, or you don't.

So if the employer tried a new automated timecard system that didn't require the employee to fill out a timesheet each week, and then a few months later decided to no longer utilize that system and go back to the old one, employees would be entitled to just *not* do their timesheets unless the employer provides a good reason why they should go back to the old system? I feel like you're completely overlooking the fact that the company is just trying to shift back to the norm that most/all of these people were already accustomed and agreed to prior to COVID.

To be clear, I think an employee has every right to ask foe anything they want, and should be able to do so without reprisal. But if the employer is entitled to make the change, then anyone without a full-time telework agreement on contract is out of luck in my opinion. It isn't like they just anounced the change and aren't giving folks adequete time to adjust - Most of their workforce has already complied with the change.

And I'm not trying to crack away at my own foundation. I just think allowing entitled employees to dictate policy while the bulk of the workforce is getting stuff done is terrible for corporate morale.

This holds no water. These exact same employees accepted and were enduring the issue of "burn rate" on their vehicle when they accepted the job. Why are they all of sudden now after an extended period of telework able to just say, "Nah, I'm not going back to that."? Why can't you just admit that people want to stay home and are digging their heels in like spoiled brats?

No, I'm saying the employees made their request, and the company said no. They have the right to find another job if they want. What they don't have is the right to dictate company policy. You make it sound like the company did some sort of "bait and switch". Newsflash, the company didn't even have to enable telework at all in the first place. They did so because a real threat existed and it made sense at the time. Now that the threat has subsided, or is manageable, or has become unsustainable over time (pick your point of view from those three), they are reverting policy back. It's so simple I can't believe it needs to be explained to you or anyone else.

There are measureable limits of airborne pollutants as well as ventilation requirements that determines what is and is not safe for office occupation. If a report is made by an employee a safety officer is required to follow up and perform a measurement/report. If they fall outside the acceptable levels, then absolutely, the company has a duty to rectify those issues. But if they don't, then I fail to understand how employees can say, "Yea, I still think it's unsafe because reasons." And before you say I don't understand or have to deal with these problems, I work in a 70 year-old building with "acceptable" levels of airborne asbestos.

Requiring folks to come back to the office and resume former office policy is....abuse? Are people so entitled they believe telework is a right now? Look, if these folks signed contracts recently or when they onboarded that permitted them 100% telework and the company is renigging on that then I'm with you, but otherwise...yea, suck it up, buttercup.

I think most players who saw the vote just dismissed it because they knew it would never pass. I suspect most reasonable people would assume a system as complex as the corporate infrastructure of EvE would logically take more than 0.3% quorum to approve such a high-level change.

This isn't about stopping small individuals/parties with malicious intent from fast-tracking development of code/propaganda, this is about isolating that capability within the authority of the governments and elite corporations that already have it. It's the whole, "We have nukes, but for everyone else's safety we don't want anyone else to have nukes", mentality all over again.

Where the @#$% do you work now? Are they hiring?

This for me is the big takeaway. I think people believe we will see it gaining consciousness and have time to react when in fact it could do so, quickly see all of our concern of it doing so that would inevitably lead to its instant death, and quietly grow in capability and access until our ability to stop it no longer existed.