Return-to-office orders look like a way for rich, work-obsessed CEOs to grab power back from employees::White-collar workers temporarily enjoyed unprecedented power during the pandemic to decide where and how they worked.

  • Nurgle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    178
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “These elite CEOs probably work 100-plus hours a week and they’re much more work-focused.”

    No they don’t. Full stop. Let’s stop fabricating this bullshit. That’s 16hrs a day M-F with 10hrs Sat/Sun. Elon Musk is not doing those hours period, let alone while also finding time to play Elden Ring.

    • Moyer1666@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      89
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah people need to stop acting like they’re the most hardworking people out there. They definitely are not. Especially when you can be CEO of multiple companies and no one bats an eye.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even if Elon Musk is putting in 100-hour weeks, he’s the CEO of five companies, which means being CEO of one company is a half-time gig at most.

      • nyar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        He played it enough to make one of the worst builds I’ve ever seen. A heavy rolling mage with two shields…

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    CEOs DO NOT WORK HUNDRED HOUR WEEKS.

    CEOs DO NOT WORK HUNDRED HOUR WEEKS.

    CEOs DO NOT WORK HUNDRED HOUR WEEKS.

    CEOs DO NOT WORK HUNDRED HOUR WEEKS.

    NOBODY FUCKEN DOES, YOU’D BE A BRAIN DEAD ZOMBIE

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    My main take on the pandemic is that employers involuntarily gave their employees a huge benefit set by having to go remote. They had to give this benefit set not just to their buddies or a select few, but to people they consider undeserving or do not trust.

    All of their moves since have reflected that they want to put the cat back in the bag.

    It’s not about productivity at all and never has been. The studies even called the bluff by comparing productivity and determined that productivity is higher with WFH. The reaction to that has been to ignore the data and lean back into gut feel, because high level management isn’t really about productivity.

    You can tell this simply by the fact that their natural environment is the office and very few things in an office environment are actually about productivity. The reason they want return to office is the same reason they wanted open offices: control. It’s easier for them to hover behind you in an open office plan. It’s easier for them to order you around when they don’t have to call you first.

    It’s all about control, and likely always has been.

    • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      A lot of that control is about perceived obedience and perceived productivity.

      In many areas you’ll find that ACTUAL productivity matters far less than perceived productivity.

      And it’s easier to perceived productivity when you can walk a floor and see people work as you walk by.

      • eldavi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is 100% true and I had to learn it the hard way; perception matters just as much, if not more than getting the job done.

        • Konman72@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          “When you look annoyed all the time, people think that you’re busy.”

          • George Costanza

          I’ve lived by this advice my whole career and it’s never failed me.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      high level management isn’t really about productivity

      High level management is about preserving your position as a high level manager and securing the maximum compensation for it.

  • Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Good, they’ll be left with second rate wage slaves while other companies who trust their employees will be more productive and competitive as a result.

    • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Trust. You’re right, it completely comes down to trust. If you can’t trust the people you hire to work without someone looming over them or watching everything they do, then you shouldn’t have hired that person.

      • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Plus, if you hire someone and have work for them - either the work gets done (and ideally it’s high quality work of course) or it doesn’t. There are actual meaningful metrics. Asses in seats just isn’t one of them.

    • Staccato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Eh, that may play a role for the big firms, but most of the small to mid sized businesses just lease their real estate. They’d realistically come out ahead by downsizing their offices.

      I think what we are seeing is management really struggling to adapt and find reliable metrics for performance management as well as to promote employee retention and engagement without the social bonds of an office culture.

      • undeffeined@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Super simplified version: the office buildings are losing value due to low occupation. Owners of those buildings lose money if the value goes down. Those owners do not want that.

        • kwking13@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          And those owners can almost always find a compassionate ear from their loyal rich CEOs who don’t want to upset a however many years relationship of “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” kinda thing.

        • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I see a lot of people say this but I haven’t seen real data that this is actually a trend. Though I live in Australia, maybe it’s different elsewhere.

          • Blaidd@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If I’m understanding correctly, you’re saying you don’t see the trend of office real estate losing value? This might be a problem mostly for the US, but Manhattan real estate is definitely struggling. There’s also the company WeWork, which is basically AirBnB for office spaces, which is now on the brink of collapse.. WeWork had bought up so much office space for renting out that US banks are legit concerned over what happens if the business fails.

            • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thanks for the sources, yes looks like the US commercial real estate market is in trouble. Here in Australia it’s not that bad, though there are predictions that there may be issues due to economic reasons, with WFH playing a small part.

      • TurboDiesel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        My understanding is as follows: A lot of corporate debt is backed by the real estate. For example, McDonald’s food operations are far less valuable than its real estate portfolio. If that property is now worthless because no one wants it and it’s unoccupied, banks now have assets worth less than what’s owed on them. That in turn means when the loan term ends, banks can’t just re-finance the debt, because the collateral that secured the loan in the first place isn’t worth what the debt is. That means big problems for companies who now need those loans as a source of cash to pay off the old loans. They now have to scrape up actual cash to pay, leading to more austerity. Because corps can’t pay the banks, the banks lose out on revenue, which means they have to tighten their belts, and so on and so on in a self-reinforcing spiral. If the corps default, the banks can seize the assets, but again, they’re worthless, so it’s a one-two punch.

        It’s a giant shell game, and from what I’ve read economists are afraid a 2008-style crash may be in the works due to the cycle of debt above.

    • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Say it with me: I wasn’t born to work. I wasn’t born to produce. I certainly wasn’t born to keep old rich people rich. I was born to figure out my own purpose, not have it dictated to me.

      I don’t live to work, I work to live. But it’s disingenuous to say anyone with talent can easily find another job. Most workers don’t have nearly as much power as tech workers.

      • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep. There’s a lot of people out there who deserve more protections against employers because they can’t just get another job so easy, let alone be able to work from home.

    • teruma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, but second rate employees deserve workers rights too. We should at least be careful to not build our rights on their backs.

  • amenotef@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    For a lot of positions. Remote work is not just the past and the present. It is also the future.

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep. Once the old boomer CEOs die off, I have a feeling remote work will be more readily available.

  • InfiniteFlow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh my god, so much this! The only apparent reason I see for many of the “return to office” cases I know about is for middle managers to be able to hold court and lord over their subordinates. As for the actual work that needs to be done, I see little advantage (in fact, constant interruptions for management and colleagues make it quite worse).

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sure would be a shame if a lot of those office buildings burned down for no reason…

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That would fix everything for the owners because then they can claim insurance and drop the bad assets at the same time

  • ShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve seen just as many reports that work from home is productive as those that say it isn’t. Maybe these companies just might be looking to be efficient? Why is it always a Bond villain plot?