Ask HN: Should employers pay a fine for superfluous work-from-office policies? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Should employers pay a fine for superfluous work-from-office policies?

3 pointsdekervin7 comments

A comment on another thread mentionned this idea: "If you are forcing work-from-office but it's not actually required, I think you should be forced to pay for the carbon footprint." [1]

I think it's a reasonnable idea, easy to evaluate, easy to implement and will probably improve carbon footprint and quality of life for everyone.

Why don't we get behind it as a policy goal? Also feel free to mention any idea that you think could be put into law and help with carbon footprint. A citizen action committee couldget behind it.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36433214

View on HN

I'm on the other side. My home is not a workplace.

If I have to work from home, why don't you (as my employer) chime in with at least 30% of my rent? Actually it should be more, as the place is taken up 100% of the time with the work tools, not only when I work...

I'm on the other side from you, but not in the way the OP is...

Personally I'm against this thing where "work" is a whole separate thing outside of "life". We're not doing anything directly to benefit ourselves, we're doing random often-useless tasks to make someone else rich, just so we can be allowed to access the basic necessities of life.

I long for world where "work" means "tasks that need to be done", not "the place I go to be a slave so I can earn the magic capitalism points". I long for a world where work is directly beneficial to us. I long for a world where there's no concept of "going to work" and "coming home from work".

I really long for a world where people don't think it sounds like a good thing to have to leave home and stop acting like a human for a massive portion of the day, every day, just to earn some arbitrary pieces of paper that only benefit us because life has been turned into a commodity by the parasites who benefit from this arrangement: the shareholding class.

I often wonder what the psychological impact of this is. What does it do to us to be forced to walk on a hamster wheel for 8+ hours a day in exchange for food?

> stop acting like a human for a massive portion of the day, every day

What does this mean to you? I've worked remote and in office, I never felt like I had to stop acting like a human, so I'd like to understand how has it been for you.

> earn some arbitrary pieces of paper that only benefit us because life has been turned into a commodity by the parasites who benefit from this arrangement: the shareholding class.

I mean, I see Capitalism in dire need of adjustments but living costs some effort. You need to shelter yourself, feed yourself and your family, keep them healthy, safe, etc; all of that takes effort. Capitalism or not. I think Capitalism needs adjustments. There should be limits to how much profit owners can capture and should be distributed more fairly among employees, etc; but physical presence to do some types of work will continue to be needed for quite some time. We won't reach Asimov's 'Solaria' state anytime soon.

Depending on the work, depending on the tool it's a discussion worth having. With parameters of the discussion set by the law.

Will they get a tax credit if it turns out that the carbon footprint is lower working from the office (because more efficient heating/cooling)?

Maybe. It's worth entertaining. But even then the discussion should take everything into account. I take the position that housing need to be built either way. But do all offices building need to be built?

If at any given time half or two third of your work force could stay at home. It means there is less office capacity that need to be built.

In any case, I welcome the debate.

I don't like the climate cult stuff, but good idea to use it as a bludgeon against a greater enemy (boomers and CRE landlords)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com