The end of the office... and the future of work
boston.com
boston.com
I worked for years at home and it made me sick because I didn't have a clear distinction between work and life. It gives the right to the employer to ask you anything anytime because he could be working. That way of working lacks the subtle connection that a team has to have and the more complex relation between management and workers.
But, I don't think that working 9-5 in an office is healthy either.
A company should offer office spaces to their employees accessible at any time of day with no obligation to get there. It may be a dream but I'm getting closer to it...
The key is "not answering" when they call out of business hours.
'It gives the right to the employer to ask you anything anytime because he could be working.'
No it doesn't, not unless you agree to it. I can't imagine having a remote job and not being clear upfront what the "office" hours are supposed to be.
It make no more sense than to think that regular office workers need to spend 24/7 at the office because the boss may be there at anytime.
As for the office-less office: after having done the telecommuting thing for a while, I just don't see it happening in a large way. Like the paperless office, it sounds obvious. But we'll still be talking about it being on the horizon twenty years from now.
Too many people in positions of influence are innately suspicious of work that doesn't manifest physically.
The question then becomes whether or not this will translate into more physical incubator/workspaces or just home offices... this is a tougher call, but with the disappearance of barriers, this will mean more easily that work will happen where it's most productive/valuable - and where this is, because of technology, is changing.
I think the future of work is going to be ~10 work days, 6 days a week, and minimal benefits.
The problem is that there are SOO many qualified people out there and not enough jobs for them. It's an employers market; they can make ridiculous demands, and people will show up to meet them because they have to.
Look at movies like "Up in the Air"...there really are people that live their lives in airports and hotels. Yes, to the extent that the person in the movie did. This sort of thing is becoming the norm.
In case you haven't seen the movie: it is about a guy who spends something like 300 days per year on the road.
You say this based on what? Do you have links to studies or reports on jobs, travel, time on the road?
You say this based on what? Do you have links to studies or reports on jobs, travel, time on the road?
This is something that really irks me about online discussions; we're not having a formal debate here, not passing policies, we're having an informal conversation about jobs.
I gave an opinion and stated it as such...yet my opinion isn't valid because I don't have research data to back it up?
A simple google search shows that my opinion is valid...Americans are working more hours per capita than they ever have before and this is a trend that is alarming (or at least interesting) to some people (like me).
Here is one such article: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108924985484258191,00.htm...
Sure. But if someone makes an interesting claim, especially one that contradicts their own experience, knowledge, or intuition, they'll likely want to know if you know something they don't. So, people like me ask for more information, specifically concrete data. If I find out it's just a gut feeling, or a guess, or whatever, that's fine by me. But I just want to know.
"I gave an opinion and stated it as such...yet my opinion isn't valid because I don't have research data to back it up?"
Maybe.
Not all opinions are valid. Sure, you're entitled to believe what you want, but if you make it public then expect others to ask questions, and absent any evidence or a good argument, to scoff.
"Sure, you're entitled to believe what you want, but if you make it public then expect others to ask questions, and absent any evidence or a good argument, to scoff."
The "make it public" is key. Sure we are not having a debate, but then no one is asking for results from double blind randomized trials either.
For me to say something (and expect people to accept the truth of what you say - I could be honestly mistaken for example), asking for data is a good thing. It forces me to reflect on why I say what I say and if the "why" is weak, then maybe I need to rethink.
".yet my opinion isn't valid because I don't have research data to back it up?"
Your opinion is valid as an opinion. it isn't valid enough to be accepted by other people without data/logic/whatever backing it up.
It might help if any such request, even if abrasively phrased, could be reinterpreted as"What makes you think so?".
That's basically why I've gotten into the habit of asking for backing material when I read what strikes me as flat assertions with no supportive argument.
It's not to turn every casual discussion into an interrogation, but because it helps (as best I've been able to tell) keep the overall quality higher by a) getting people to pause a bit before tossing off casual, overly broad, and often ill-reasoned, comments (e.g. "Perl 6 will never be released"), and b) often gets people to provide links and data.
In the best scenarios, that means some of us learn something new.