(02-03-2025, 07:01 PM)tomh009 Wrote:

(02-03-2025, 12:04 PM)plam Wrote: Because it is a fundamentally pro-CEO thing to say that workers have none of the power and they have to work downtown because the boss says so. It is not the responsibility of workers to make sure that the businesses that were built to serve the lunch crowd can continue to operate. Creative destruction means that you have to change your business model sometimes. And it is much better for people in general to have flexibility about when they are working in the office.

Ultimately, the company offers a job to a potential employee, with certain compensation and certain working conditions (which have traditionally involved working in the office). The potential employee then has the ability to decide whether to accept or not. Once employment has started, if the working conditions change (or don't change) or compensation changes (or doesn't change), the employee is able to resign at any time, with no financial consequences (the employer can also terminate but is bound by labour law and common law to provide termination/separation pay in most cases).

So, if the company decides that work needs to be in the office three, four or five days a week, they are able to leave, either individually or en masse. The employer can weigh this risk in balance with whatever benefits they expect to get from working in the office.

That's just reality, not pro-CEO or pro-worker.

(02-03-2025, 09:06 PM)plam Wrote: And it would be even more true if there was a Universal Basic Income. Otherwise, well, people need to work to pay their bills.

(02-03-2025, 11:31 PM)tomh009 Wrote:

(02-03-2025, 09:06 PM)plam Wrote: And it would be even more true if there was a Universal Basic Income. Otherwise, well, people need to work to pay their bills.

And companies need employees to get work done.

There are times when there are not enough jobs for the job-seekers, and there are times when there are fewer job-seekers than jobs. Usually, these is a reasonable balance between the two, and people are able to quit their jobs and switch to something else. It's not as if we have indentured labour and companies can prevent people from leaving.

(02-04-2025, 02:27 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Surprising conservative take from you. Canada is clearly not the US but I think this applies across the boarder as well even if it is more true in the US. I’m not going to argue that this is the same as indentured servitude but it is also absolutely clear that with the decimation of unions the majority of lower income people are not negotiating on an equal footing with employers. Not even remotely close. They generally must accept the terms they are offered because they have to work. Where as companies can generally replace people pretty easily. I don’t really believe the labour shortage arguments I heard a few years ago. That was a unique pandemic related situation not the typical North American situation. 

As for higher income workers like office workers, the reality is that flexible work arrangements are an incredibly cheap perk for a company to provide (generally having negative cost) and the only cases where it has been pulled back is through incompetent and spiteful management and as a mechanism of doing layoffs in secret (which I also consider incompetent).

(02-04-2025, 03:59 PM)tomh009 Wrote:

(02-04-2025, 02:27 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Surprising conservative take from you. Canada is clearly not the US but I think this applies across the boarder as well even if it is more true in the US. I’m not going to argue that this is the same as indentured servitude but it is also absolutely clear that with the decimation of unions the majority of lower income people are not negotiating on an equal footing with employers. Not even remotely close. They generally must accept the terms they are offered because they have to work. Where as companies can generally replace people pretty easily. I don’t really believe the labour shortage arguments I heard a few years ago. That was a unique pandemic related situation not the typical North American situation. 

As for higher income workers like office workers, the reality is that flexible work arrangements are an incredibly cheap perk for a company to provide (generally having negative cost) and the only cases where it has been pulled back is through incompetent and spiteful management and as a mechanism of doing layoffs in secret (which I also consider incompetent).

Indeed, the situation is far less balanced for low-income/minimum-wage workers, no argument there. But the discussion started from remote work, and that's a different segment altogether.

I would argue that our group doesn't have incompetent management, nor have we had either layoffs or resignations since we switched from fully remote to hybrid almost four years ago. I would further propose that every situation is different, and not everyone is an idiot. 😊

(02-05-2025, 01:50 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Not everyone has been forced back to the office. But I have two friends who have been given “must be in office” notices. One is clearly suffering hidden layoffs (they don’t even have a desk for him) and the other I think is just bad management. Both are looking for work but both have been given a momentary reprieve because their direct managers don’t want to lose them.

(02-05-2025, 11:19 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Since their pay anticipates the costs of working in the office, working from home should result in a reduced salary, no?

(02-05-2025, 12:37 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:

(02-05-2025, 11:19 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Since their pay anticipates the costs of working in the office, working from home should result in a reduced salary, no?

Costs of working in the office for whom? I know you're talking about the costs for the employee but you can argue equipment, real estate, and amenities savings for the employer should go back into employee pay. Not to mention, for obvious reasons WFH coincided with a massive increase in cost of living that hasn't been made up in pay increases so you can view WFH as way to make up that difference, or RTO as a pay cut.

I had this discussion with my management 3 years ago who didn't understand my teams resistance to returning when, according to them, it's clearly beneficial. I could only explain my perspective, but I told them that any supposed business productivity benefits (which were really just vibes based) were awarded to the company while the costs of RTO were borne by the employees who now lose an extra 2 hours of their day, have to pay commuting costs, etc. Regardless, we returned to the office as we were told without further complaint. Despite generous pay increases, the entire team had resigned within 3 months.

(02-05-2025, 12:37 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: I had this discussion with my management 3 years ago who didn't understand my teams resistance to returning when, according to them, it's clearly beneficial. I could only explain my perspective, but I told them that any supposed business productivity benefits (which were really just vibes based) were awarded to the company while the costs of RTO were borne by the employees who now lose an extra 2 hours of their day, have to pay commuting costs, etc. Regardless, we returned to the office as we were told without further complaint. Despite generous pay increases, the entire team had resigned within 3 months.