General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[plam]

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.

That would be true if there is no collusion. Of course, workers can unionize; and CEOs can talk to their CEO buddies.

And it would be even more true if there was a Universal Basic Income. Otherwise, well, people need to work to pay their bills.

[tomh009]

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.

[danbrotherston]

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.

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).

[tomh009]

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. 😊

[danbrotherston]

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. 😊

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.

[tomh009]

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.

Every situation is different. In some cases there is a benefit to working in the office--at least for some days--and in other cases there is not. And, yes, if there is no benefit, then it's just poor management to force people to do something they don't want to do.

[panamaniac]

Since their pay anticipates the costs of working in the office, working from home should result in a reduced salary, no?

[dtkvictim]

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.

[danbrotherston]

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.

Yeah, no kidding...this is such a weird take. It presupposes that working in an office is more valuable for an employer, which is HIGHLY DUBIOUS and is generally contradicted every time it's studied (frankly, IMO it's generally a crutch used by poor managers who aren't able to gauge their employees productivity except by watching them or as Michael Scott would put it "managing by walking around"). On the other hand, it is clearly and objectively an expense to the employer (as well as the employee). When I worked at TD, and keep in mind this was before the pandemic, their realestate team had goals to limit the time spent in office by employees, and this was a cost saving measure for them.

So you have a policy which has no demonstrated benefit but a clear proven cost. So....when you have RTO mandates...what does that lead one to believe about the people making those decisions--they are either incompetent, or have an ulterior motive.

The only time WFH could have an influence on pay is at a company which pays based on the geographic location their employees work in (which is many big companies), but this would only apply to fully remote work, and not hybrid work as is much more common than fully remote.

[tomh009]

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.

A very different dynamic indeed. While in DTK no one was losing 2h per day to commuting (30 minutes to 1h more typical) we also did not have any generous pay increases. And yet, four years after we switched to a three-day hybrid model, we have only had one person (from about 25) resign, and that was for personal reasons.

[Acitta]

I was just reading that in the US, the Trump administration has ordered all WFH employees to return to the offices, but the office managers say that they don't have room because they have office space for only half of them.

[tomh009]

Facts have never stopped him before!

[bravado]

He also instructed them to look at cancelling all their federal office leases, so there's lots of Strong Leadership™ coming from the white house these days.

[danbrotherston]

I mean, he also aims to fire most of them, (he plans to do worse to the rest) so I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent.

But I don't think that's a typical situation. If he only ordered everyone back to the office he'd be an average US president from my lifetime (i.e., mediocre and mildly incompetent)

[Kodra24]

WFH is such a failed concept, especially within the public sector - I mean, who is actually being productive here?

A friend who is a manager for the Ontario gov't was thanking his stars when they brought back employees for a few days of the week, he wasn't able to get ahold of anyone - and of course the dreaded unions were against it

Cannot wait for large scale cuts to the public sector, so many are abusing the system