Comment by paulcole

Comment by paulcole 3 days ago

OK but what if the output of the company being in the office is enough to offset that?

Like is Apple “better” for the world if they worked from home and never made the iPhone?

Or what if there are people who want to work in an office with other people who want to work in an office and are willing to trade some CO2 and small risk of death to do so?

Can’t the people who believe remote work is bad quit and get a job somewhere else? Should be simple since remote work is so obviously inherently good.

I get that this is going to be like playing tennis against a wall because HN has such a hard-on for remote work that they’ll never admit that in-office work has benefits that remote work lacks and that a company that requires in-office work isn’t inherently evil.

consteval 2 days ago

> OK but what if the output of the company being in the office is enough to offset that?

Ok and what if it rains gold from the sky and poverty is cured forever? Are we just saying things now? Because I have absolutely no reason to believe this is the case, and Amazon is dead-set on not giving me a reason.

> Or what if there are people who want to work in an office with other people who want to work in an office and are willing to trade some CO2 and small risk of death to do so?

In practice, not a viable position. RTO only works if you force other people to go to the office when they don't want to. Because the office, itself, is actually useless. It's just a building. The office is desired for the people in it. Meaning, such a position is one born of control. The same is not the case with WFH. Meaning, WFH does not care where you are. RTO cares a lot about where you are. One is intrinsically easier to swallow therefore, because one by its very nature orients itself towards freedom. This is undeniable.

> isn’t inherently evil.

I never said a company is inherently evil. Amazon is, for other reasons.

You said that RTO doesn't have any real downsides. Keyword "real". Well, that's not true - it has many REAL downsides. As in: lives lost, habitats harmed, climate destroyed. It's real enough we can measure it. If you don't particularly like this I don't know what to tell you, it's just the way it is. CEOs and other execs are so detached from the real world. But when you make BIG decisions those have BIG consequences.

Reply View 5 replies

paulcole 2 days ago

> You said that RTO doesn't have any real downsides.
I literally never said this. Obviously some people perceive it to have downsides. Some may believe these downsides are 100% objective.
> Because the office, itself, is actually useless.
Like I actually did say, like tennis against a wall.
> RTO only works if you force other people to go to the office when they don't want to.
You are correct here and I don't think this is a bad thing. People have agency and can get new jobs if they find the office so distasteful and care about the climate so much.

Reply View | 4 replies
- consteval 2 days ago
  
  > Some may believe these downsides are 100% objective.
  I just explained to you, in clear terms, some objective outcomes. These aren't make believe - you actually have to spend time and money to get to an office. I'm sorry, there's no way around that. Teleportation has not yet been invented.
  > You are correct here and I don't think this is a bad thing.
  You could make the argument this isn't a bad thing, but one thing is undebatable: the arguments aren't on equal footing. An argument for RTO HAS TO, necessarily, articulate a pro-control argument. A WFH argument does not, and that's the difference.
  That's why one argument is easy for people to swallow and the other isn't. RTO is inherently anti-freedom, and people don't like that. Even some people who like working in an office don't like that.
  > office so distasteful and care about the climate so much
  This is a strawman, and I'm starting to feel like a broken record. Once again, I'm not referring to these more wishy-washy arguments.
  It would be in your favor if pro-WFH arguments were just based on feelings. Unfortunately, they're not - they're based on real costs. Time is a real cost. Driving is a real cost.
  These aren't small costs. By choosing to go RTO I wouldn't be surprised if each employee takes, at least, the equivalent of a 10% salary deduction. Now this is difficult to argue in favor for, which is why you don't. Unfortunately choosing to orient your position that way makes it lose credibility, which is what Amazon has faced when they refuse to bring any data to the conversation.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
  
  paulcole 2 days ago
  
  > These aren't make believe - you actually have to spend time and money to get to an office.
  Is a restaurant charging you money for a meal a downside? A cost isn't a downside for everyone. For me it's an investment in going to where I'd rather work.
  > RTO is inherently anti-freedom, and people don't like that
  A decree to work remotely is also inherently anti-freedom it's just that you happen to like that anti-freedom outcome. The people who prefer to work in an office with other people are having their freedom taken away here. And the “just choose what works for you” approach doesn’t solve the issue of working with people who not also in the office.
  Whether a company opts for hybrid/remote/office/some combination there are going to be people who dislike that decision. And again, that decision is under no circumstances objectively bad to everyone. There are drawbacks and benefits to each and the company makes their choice. You can definitely say, “I hate that choice!” but “That choice is bad!” is just not true in every case.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies