Bus driver
The GUBMENT wants to give ME rights?
THAT AINT THE KIND OF FREEDOM I WANT!
I don't think as many managers give a shit about counting the arbitrary 40 hours of work/week anymore. That's pretty old school thinking.That‘s really a non-issue IMO. People either get their work done on time and at or above the expected quality or they eventually get fired same as they would working in office.
The problem is too many companies/managers are bean counters who want to make sure they’re getting their 40 hours of work. when at the end of the day, with most jobs that could be done from home they’re really just paying for deliverables.
For instance, it doesn't matter if a report due at the end of the week took 30 hours or 40 hours of actual woes long as it’s done on time and high quality. But some managers get their jimmies rustled if they find out someone only worked 30 hours that week to do their assigned work even if the outcome was excellent.
Newsflash, the in-office employees aren’t working 40 hours either. People are goofing online, on their phones, chatting with coworkers or just generally taking their time with their work as they know if they finish early they’ll just get more work thrown at them. People learn quickly in most offices that if they’re more talented and work faster that it doesn’t pay to get ahead. They just end up doing an unfair amount of work while the slackers spend more time networking and kissing ass get promoted first.
More things need to go salaried and just be evaluated on the quality and timeliness of work/deliverables and that makes monitoring home workers the same as in-office ones. For both things are either done on time and high quality, or you get fired after a few fuck ups. This of course only applies to certain types of jobs where performance can be evaluated in this manner and that can be done equally well from home.
I don't think as many managers give a shit about counting the arbitrary 40 hours of work/week anymore. That's pretty old school thinking.
Generally speaking, it's a chore to work with or manage someone who works from home even if they're good at their job. They're just inherently not as available. So you're either stuck scheduling calls with them every time you want to talk, or waiting for their IM availability to turn green. It's inefficient even if you totally discount the social value of face to face interactions.
It's also not easy at most modern companies to just fire someone if they're slacking. Most HR/Legal teams want a lot of justification, evidence, documented warnings, etc. And justifiably so. But any office has its share of people who have learned where the bare minimum line is and are careful to stay just beyond it so they can stay employed. Giving every employee the opportunity to work from home as much as they want, regardless of tenure or reputation muddies that water.
WFH should definitely be more prevalent when things start up again. I'm fine with governments mandating it as long as there's a public health crisis going on, but after that we should leave it to companies to implement as appropriate for their own business.
Is it about seeing your desktop, or even video of you?..people watching you 24/7 like fucking Skynet...
Is it about seeing your desktop, or even video of you?
I'll be honest I'm shit at working from home, getting much less done
No, not really.
They force several daily meetings and keep sending e-mails and text messages at any time to see if you are paying attention. While at the office I worked largely unsupervised most of the time and had like 3 meetings per month. It fucking sucks. And they have random demands just to see if you can do them quickly.
If you don't have worker rights you could be forced to work in hazardous conditions on a seven day week with wages less than a living wage... Thats serfdom.
I heard the same thing about the EU 15 years ago.Living in the past leads to irrelevancy in the future. That's why China and India are going to rise higher than America in the future.
It seems to me that if an employer is coerced into allowing someone to work remotely he will probably do these things out of spite.
Or...or...or...y'like know...maybe I could just opt not to work at that company. Candidates have choices you know.
"Everyone who wants to and whose job allows it"
Sadly, I imagine enshrining this as a "right" in law will make a lot of companies just cease allowing working from home as an option.
Leave this shit up to the free market. Most of the developed world's offices are already moving in that direction. No one needs the government stepping in and demanding things be done a certain way when it comes to this issue.
Free market hasn't solved shit. Folks in america are working themselves to death on two jobs to pay bills; while abroad you only need one thanks to rights enshrined in law to protect the employee from exploitative employers.
Ain't nobody in a cushy office job that can be done from home "working themselves to death" to pay the bills, and if they are, it's only because of the life choices they made (borrow money in order to live well above their means, etc.).
Now, I'm not against worker rights, but jobs perks like this should never need to be legally enshrined. They should be part of the employer's offering to attract talent.
Thats way too much power for Employers and has empirically not shown any benefit for the worker.
It's too much power to be able to require people come into the office when deemed necessary? Nah, fuck that.
If it was really that simple; all labor issues would have been solved already. The employer holds all the cards and there aren't enough jobs that a person can just walk from one into another.
This is why Unions are critical to society.
Free market hasn't solved shit. Folks in america are working themselves to death on two jobs to pay bills; while abroad you only need one thanks to rights enshrined in law to protect the employee from exploitative employers.
It is that simple - you either take the job or you don't. The only reason the employer "holds" all the cards is because candidates find the risk acceptable.
Unions are for people that otherwise wouldn't be able to hold a non-unionized job.
Tell me another economic model that has raised as many people out of poverty as free market / capitalism has.
That's the important part. Noone says they couldn't go in the odd day. But we must start with flexible working as a minimum with either the choice to work at home as standard if available to the job type; or extra benefits in exchange for having to come in.
Makes the company more competitive, productive and better-suited for the future disasters of further epidemics, climate change, etc.
That's why it shouldn't be made as a law, because you need to very clearly define things when it's a law and you can't really leave room for arbitrary decisions about the constitutes "the odd day." Leave it up to arrangements between employers and employees. People will always choose companies that offer better work environments and accommodate the lifestyles of their employees, so companies will need to adapt to stay competitive. No need to force anything with laws in this case.
Material conditional - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
One of the jobs of a goverment is to ensure balance. The employer is in a stronger position. You need laws to prevent exploitations of employees.
Legislature, executive, judiciary ... Sue your employer. Afterwards he will find a way to get rid of you, but you will find another job and he will get his punishment.
lmao
people here really think changing law is something that a government shouldn't do
lmao
The research says flexitime and/or home working; as well as offices that are much more spaced out between people, with a lot of windows and green plants (more O2) provide for much higher levels of productivity. More incentives for employees help too. Stuffy offices, crowded, dimly lit and stressful environments are all much worse.
Not everyone will like it; but theres no reason the majority of office work couldn't be done at home leaving that wasted space in office buildings freed to be used for more efficient tasks.
Which research?
A Green Office Equals A Productive Office
A recent Harvard study finds that greenery in the office makes people more productive. It joins a number of previous studies highlighting similar findings, but are facilities managers going green as a result?www.forbes.com
Why Remote Workers Are More Productive
Working from home can increase employees' productivity. Here's how you and your team can make the most of working remotely and manage work relationships.www.businessnewsdaily.com
Can working from home increase employee productivity?
Research shows that working from home can increase employee productivity. We explore the reasons behind this, as well as why it's good for business.www.breathehr.com
To Raise Productivity, Let More Employees Work from Home
The study: Nicholas Bloom and graduate student James Liang, who is also a cofounder of the Chinese travel website Ctrip, gave the staff at Ctrip’s call center the opportunity to volunteer to work from home for nine months. Half the volunteers were allowed to telecommute; the rest remained in the...hbr.org
An Airtasker survey is not research you fucking amoeba
Thats way too much power for Employers and has empirically not shown any benefit for the worker.
Green offices make employees happier and more productive: study
People who work in a “green” office, literally surrounded by plants, are happier than people in “lean” offices without live foliage, suggests a new study.www.reuters.com
Think I'm going to do all the work for you, pleb? Journal article reference is in the article.
lol you absolute moron
I wasn’t disputing your assertion that plants can make people happier in their workplace. I was asking for receipts for your claim that working from home definitively boosts productivity. All you’ve done is link me journalist clickbait garbo.
Arkage get itt!!!
Does Working from Home Work? Evidence from a Chinese Experiment
www.gsb.stanford.edu
In this case, 13% boost to productivity.
One case for a Chinese call center. A job where you can’t easily slack off in a country that punishes slackers harshly. When you’re talking about changing a law, you need to prove that it works in all cases, or at the very least the majority of cases.
How hard have you been googling rn btw? Your quick fire responses show you either had your references all lined up neatly prior to this conversation or you’re just linking me shit you haven’t read and don’t understand.
Proof of concept. Leave the rest for the Government to decide. Like I said; not all jobs can do this; but theres no reason a mostly digital office can't. Its not difficult to predict responses.
The jobs that can't will be replaced by automation anyway; like farmers, shop workers, even mine.
Ain't nobody in a cushy office job that can be done from home "working themselves to death" to pay the bills, and if they are, it's only because of the life choices they made (borrow money in order to live well above their means, etc.).
Now, I'm not against worker rights, but jobs perks like this should never need to be legally enshrined. They should be part of the employer's offering to attract talent.
Another popular lie that is spread everywhere on the internet, but has no basis in realityFree market hasn't solved shit. Folks in america are working themselves to death on two jobs to pay bills; while abroad you only need one thanks to rights enshrined in law to protect the employee from exploitative employers.
Seriously, you need to wake up and live in the real world.Proof of concept. Leave the rest for the Government to decide. Like I said; not all jobs can do this; but theres no reason a mostly digital office can't. Its not difficult to predict responses.
The jobs that can't will be replaced by automation anyway; like farmers, shop workers, even mine.
I did work 2 jobs for about a year's time, 7 days a week, and it fucking sucked.
I got a better job, because I'm not retarded!
Need to stop enshrining shit into law that isn't Government's business. Did Germany learn nothing...?
Hubertus Heil
My sentence is a general statement. And i interpreted yours as one too. Being required to do your job in the workplace is no exploitation. And introducing a law to force the employer to allow work from home is unnecessary. There are benefits to working from home, like instead of going into parental leave you could still work for your company. But when you are that important to your employer, then you could negotiate instead of there being some law.For fuck’s sake, being required to do your job in the workplace instead of the home is not worker exploitation What the fuck happened to you Germans? You used to have teeth.
My sentence is a general statement. And i interpreted yours as one too. Being required to do your job in the workplace is no exploitation. And introducing a law to force the employer to allow work from home is unnecessary. There are benefits to working from home, like instead of going into parental leave you could still work for your company. But when you are that important to your employer, then you could negotiate instead of there being some law.
I just didn't like your twisting of arguments to have something to fire back.