Why Bad CEOs Fear Remote Work
scottberkun.com
scottberkun.com
I understand that some people prefer the arms-length / just-the-facts-ma'am working style but it's not for me. And I used to think I was a hardcore introvert!
Also, don’t feel bad about what the remote-work zealots have to say in this thread (or anywhere for that matter). This forum is full of them I’ve learnt over the course of this pandemic.
Saying “I don’t prefer or like remote work but I totally empathise with why others do or might do” isn’t enough for them. Nothing less than “Remote work! Hallelujah!” works for them.
Don’t forget that even though it’s just work, it still takes up a third of your day. I would personally prefer to spend that third of my day working around other people.
I can’t express how much I hate having to communicate through a four inch by four inch box on my computer screen.
If we are doing anecdotes
The staff on-site or asking to come back on-site at my job are all the go-getters. Seriously. It's the folks you least care about coming onsite because they are on all the time at home too, work weekends etc.
The staff you have to follow-up on to know what is going on - radio silence and when there is talk of coming back to the office have extreme concerns over COVID (even though they take time to travel during the pandemic and office will be 100% vaccinated only in an area with < 1.5% positive test rates and < 3 per 100K infection rates).
We've seen a pretty big split like this in the schools as well. A bunch of more energetic seeming charter and other schools - full bore for months with lots of creative solutions. The public schools - closed and remote only education. I guess those heads of school that are avoiding remote are "bad" - total BS.
Let's stop with these garbage headlines and articles unless someone has some real data.
Of course some of the talkers got promoted anyway ...
We have maybe 0-2 messages a day in shared channels. Ie, basically NEVER - we do use DM's a lot during remote work for teams which then we usually launch a screen share to work through stuff together on (in pairs 99% of the time).
I'd argue what will get it to happen is upping the workplace quality.
The push to get people back to work is inevitable. Of course they could do what economics says to do: provide incentives to enhance the utility to the worker of going into work vs staying home.
Food. Workout. Food. Commuter perks (free bus card, free bikeshare, free scootershare). Food. CHILDCARE (a whole new can of beans, who with kids does not recognize the paramount need for nationalized child care now).
Did I mention food?
Echo everything else you said, though.
If I were to survive a stroke tomorrow, would you tell me that I shouldn't have had them in the first place since I'd require all kinds of assistance to care for them?
Would you support legislation to ensure that I don't get help?
If you intentionally have kids, you should have had an emergency fund stockpiled long before conception.
It is, but it wouldn't be challenging to construct far less exceptional cases to consider.
* workers of dangerous jobs e.g. oil rigs and mining
* workers in seemingly-stable jobs that are suddenly outsourced e.g. GMC factory workers in Flint, MI
* workers in industries on the verge of collapse e.g. milkmen and telephone switchboard operators
* lost income after the birth of a disabled child forcing one parent to stay home full-time
> If you intentionally have kids, you should have had an emergency fund stockpiled long before conception.
By shifting 100% of the responsibility to the parents, you're ignoring the issue of far greater importance: the wellbeing of the children.
Telling parents that they should have planned better and saved more does nothing for their children, but those children WILL have an impact on the future society you inhabit.
If you have the financial means to have children, and feel like having children, then you should be free to have them.
But if you want to have children but do not have the financial means, then why should anyone else in society (whom would have to give up some of their financial capacity) take on the burden for you?
If i replaced "children" with "yacht", would you have a different opinion?
> Who is going to do all the manual labour
if there's fewer people doing manual labour, the price would grow to match demand - the statement you made is a non sequitur.
We may be about to step through some undergrad poli-sci and IPE coursework and (as inevitably happens) a review of book 1 of Plato's Republic up-thread, if you're interested. Or the poster may just leave it at a downvote and not respond. :-/
I tried to take Socrates' side of Book 1's exchange re: the definition of justice once already with another probably-libertarian, but we got derailed by your parent poster. (the short version for the uninitiated: if you try for a simple, inflexible, & complete definition of justice, you've almost certainly opened yourself to obvious contradictions and/or consequences that everyone hates as soon as you start gaming it out—workable definitions of justice that survive serious scrutiny are hard to come by)
Being a child is the way every single citizen starts life, and how they do in that period has dramatic influence on the rest of their lives. Society can't afford to leave all that only up to parents.
You made a choice to not have kids, did you also make the choice to never interact with anybody else again? Because those people are only there because their parents chose to have kids, and you have an interest in how they turned out.
interaction with other people are governed by law, and to some extend, cultural norms. Whether i choose to interact with people makes no difference to whether society has to bear the burden of the kids that the parents choose not to bear when they choose to have them. You're making an assumption that a poor parent will raise a bad kid, unless society will chip in. I don't believe that. A smart parent will raise a good kid, whether they are poor or not.
And society _already_ bear some burden, since k-12 education is free.
Childcare at an even earlier age than k-12 is expensive because it is not scalable, and i'm questioning whether it is worth the cost. If the parent doesn't make enough to cover the childcare cost in their job, they can and should perform their own childcare duty. Parents that make more than their childcare cost would make the rational choice of paying for childcare, since they will still have excess money after paying. Or they can choose to do childcare themselves - as is their freedom and right.
What i don't believe in is to have tax payers pay for the childcare. The high earning parent don't need it, and the low income earner is getting a huge benefit for little to no reward for the tax payer - and childcare doesnt get cheaper the more it is collectively paid.
If everyone that cared for the environment took this stance - the only people alive in 100 years would be those that care nothing for the environment.
Parenting is a lifelong commitment and requires responsibilities beyond that which I am willing to commit. I think bringing new carbon generators, who are capable of profound suffering, into the world would be doing a disservice to the environment, everyone around me, myself, and most importantly the child.
What if I need to get my car repaired? You are telling me the office can't have an on site mechanic? Oil change while I work would be a nice perk. Email me when it is done.
I don't need Home Depot but what about some packages of mulch for the lawn at a reasonable price?
I am so sick of this.
The free food does a good job of keeping me in the building. I honestly can’t understand why anyone would be opposed to office perks.
> You are telling me the office can't have an on site mechanic?
I worked in an office with an on-site bike mechanic. His job wasn't to specifically serve the staff but he would help us often, at a company where most people biked to work.
Well-maintained vehicles break down less, and the mechanic would often make people let him change their bald tires or lube their rusty chains. No doubt it kept people from being late to work, or having to take time out of their work day to bring their bikes to a shop.
“Hacker” is being left out of news!
I believe back in the day the term would be “hog wash”