Comment by consteval

Comment by 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.

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

consteval a day ago

> A decree to work remotely is also inherently anti-freedom it's just that you happen to like that anti-freedom outcome
Incorrect, and I'll explain why. Remote work DOES NOT imply anything about how, or where, you have to work.
You can commute to an office and work at an office with remote work. 100%, that is an option.
What remote work says is you can't FORCE people to come to an office for your own personal pleasure. This isn't anti-freedom, it's literally the opposite.
RTO has the opposite implication. You returning to office doesn't actually matter. You, personally, don't actually care about yourself in the office. You care about other people being in the office. Because the office itself has no value, it only has value if the other people are there.
This is why RTO is hard to swallow. Because a select few, like yourself, believe you have the right and privilege to dictate where everyone else should work, purely for your own benefit. Because you personally enjoy working in an office, you believe everyone should be forced to as well at your whim.
Your preference of collaboration relies on other people physically being where you want them to be. The same is not true for WFH. If you disagree, I encourage you to go to the office by yourself. You'll quickly realize you don't care for the office, you care for forcing people to be in the office with you.

Reply View | 1 reply
- paulcole 16 hours ago
  
  > Incorrect, and I'll explain why. Remote work DOES NOT imply anything about how, or where, you have to work.
  No, I can assure you it is correct. It DOES imply that I am not guaranteed the thing I want which is to work in an office solely with other people in that office. This is the same that an RTO decree does not guarantee that people will be allowed what they want — which is to work remotely.
  Both groups don’t get the thing they want when the company puts them in the situation they don’t like. They’re exactly the same thing.
  > Because you personally enjoy working in an office, you believe everyone should be forced to as well at your whim.
  Again, no, never said this.
  I said that a company deciding that a RTO strategy is best for them is fine. A company choosing to work remotely is fine. But if you dislike the choice your company makes, either learn to live with it or get a new job.
  Neither decision is bad. It just depends on which side of the foaming-at-the-mouth aisle you sit.
  > Because you personally enjoy working in an office, you believe everyone should be forced to as well at your whim.
  Again, this is the same thing as the remote worker believes. Because they enjoy working with other remote workers they believe everyone should be forced to as well at their whim.
  > If you disagree, I encourage you to go to the office by yourself. You'll quickly realize you don't care for the office, you care for forcing people to be in the office with you.
  I actually work at a 100% remote company and do go to an office everyday (albeit one I rent for myself). Have been doing it since 2021.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies