this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
521 points (95.5% liked)

Work Reform

10011 readers
316 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, but you're thinking about when the company picks people to fire. Forcing people back to the office decreases worker satisfaction across the board, and workers will respond individually. I'd argue that those highest paid will be most willing to suffer the inconvenience of commuting, regardless of their talent, so the "make working here annoying" plan will tend to retain higher paid employees while losing lower paid people through attrition. Likewise, workers are more likely to tolerate the annoyances if they don't have any other options. Good people can more easily job-hop, so this strategy is also likely to retain the lower-performing employees while the top performers go elsewhere, not considering pay rate. Total labor costs will decline, because there's fewer people working, but it's not an efficient selection process.

Long story short: pissing on your employees results in a smaller, lower quality workforce.

[–] monkeytennis@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I agree on performance, but I'm well paid and would tolerate almost zero unjustified inconvenience. I can afford to take a cut, but in reality would probably earn even more elsewhere.

More experienced folk are also more likely to go freelance, since they have the skills, experience and contacts. Perm roles only make sense when they bring stability and benefits. I expect to see this a lot more, if RTO continues.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’d argue that those highest paid will be most willing to suffer the inconvenience of commuting, regardless of their talent

I'm not sure this is accurate. Most of the highly paid people I know (myself included), feel quite empowered by the current job market and can basically pick jobs at their leisure.

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I think I phrased that badly. I just meant that people can be paid to tolerate annoyances. More likely to happen in reverse, like if I'm going to have to do this unpleasant thing, then you're going to have to pay me extra, but the principle's the same.