I don't think that companies are deliberately trying to be awful to workers. They are just using the standard American model.. "How much can we get away with?"
The country is in desperate need of widespread unionization efforts.
Companies that I’ve seen do it well have an executive level employee advocacy position. Typically in a human resource department, but less concerned about the policy and regulatory requirements and is specifically tasked to be a champion/voice for employees.
No thanks. I don’t like working with clock punchers nor do I want to get paid as poorly as programmers in Europe/Canada.
Until unions in the US stop prioritizing seniority over competence for pay, they need to stay the hell away from this industry.
I worked received great pay in the US, but made the decision to return to Australia. I have some regrets, but the lifestyle I get from not being in the Bay Area pretty much offsets any pay difference.
What I miss most is the scope and pace of the work and the incredibly intelligent people I got to work with. Thankfully I'm beginning to see the genesis of this in my local market.
If they try to make you do better/more work a nicer or a ruder way is an implementation detail. The goal is always to extract as much work as possible from you at the lowest price.
Sometimes the goals of the company converge with the goal of employees. Most of the time they exist in a state of frozen conflict. It sucks, but that's just how the employer/employee relationship must work out in general.
Where? I don’t see that in what they wrote.
A different way to read that is: people would do as told and not ask to work remotely because they could get replaced.
But that applies only if the company does not care about the employees and wants cogs instead.
Remote work is a big change.
Ergo, absent an exteral driver of change, companies will continue doing what they've always done.
If efficiency had literally anything to do with it we would have all been remote since 2005.