this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
721 points (97.7% liked)

Work Reform

10000 readers
550 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
 

White-collar workers temporarily enjoyed unprecedented power during the pandemic to decide where and how they worked.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 80 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Plus they have a ton invested in commercial real-estate and office buildings. They literally losing money and makes me happy.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 year ago (5 children)

They really aren't losing money because:

a) WFH has been saving them money (i.e. lowered heating, water, electricity, stationary, toilet paper, food, janitorial, window cleaning, etc.).

b) Their WFH staff are more productive than their office staff.

Just let those leases expire when they do, and these companies will really be saving a ton of money from not having to lease large office space.

I don't get the desire to cling onto some outdated, unproductive, sad way of doing things.

[–] Pickle_Jr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just let those leases expire when they do

The companies losing money are the huge companies who don't lease from what I've seen.

A company in my city JUST finished a $250-million expansion onto their HQ right as COVID hit. That same land area is in a central location and was even being highly considered for high density housing before the company bought the land. The parking lot for the new building never gets more than half full. Fuck 'em.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

haha. Too bad for them. Just like how regular folks were/still are getting screwed by stuff over the last few years, it's hard for me to have any sympathy for a company that even has $250 million for an expansion.

[–] Ataraxia@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

Control. They call it office culture because it's a cult. They control the way you think and make it easy for you to be manipulated and keep you under their thumb. They can't make you think they give anahit if they can't bribe you with bullshit like snacks and pizza and a gym. They can't slowly take away your benefits because "hey look we gave you standing desks". Office culture needs to die.

[–] Durotar@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

a) WFH has been saving them money (i.e. lowered heating, water, electricity, stationary, toilet paper, food, janitorial, window cleaning, etc.).

How? If I own a building and I can't rent it out, I'm losing money. I still have to pay some bills and probably repay the loan that I took to build or renovate it.

b) Their WFH staff are more productive than their office staff.

Is there undeniable data proving that? I'd like to see a bunch of researches that support each other and have serious samples.

[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Majority of studies and measurements show that remote working leads to happier, less stressed workers spending more time on task. Previous studies have shown those are key factors in driving productivity.

The notable difference is that manager reported productivity often show worse measures as unchanged or lower productivity, even where less subjective measures show increases.

Some studies have tried to measure productivity directly, these commonly have unaddressed problems with methodology, and show more mixed results ranging from slightly less productive to significantly more productive.

I seem to remember a study measuring rate of completion of task lists as much more productive, including call centers, IT, customer service and sales. Whereas more nebulous tasks in management and group facilitation suffered slightly.

I'm thinking it's due time for a meta study on the topic though, maybe you could put one together?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] penguin@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No this isn't right. It's cheaper to have an empty building than a full one so companies who own their buildings would still make more money letting their employees work from home.

Also, even if it was true, no company is going to try to solve a problem like that. Companies are selfish. They'd rather everyone else go back to work to boost the value of commercial real estate while they continue to work from home to increase their profits everywhere.

The only reason companies are forcing people back is because upper management simply prefers that work environment. They like to sit in their corner office, surrounded by their peons. A sense of power.

Or, they have the kind of personality where they thrive surrounded by people and can't understand how anyone could be productive at home, data be damned.

It has nothing to do with real estate.

[–] Pickle_Jr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I 100% agree there are people in management who just like to have a sense of power over people, but there are big corporations losing money over real-estate.

For starters, if you're a firm who owns a lot of rental office space, you're losing money on the businesses not renewing their license (which I'm not saying this is a bad thing).

Then, you have the huge corporate business who have a huge amount of office space which they own. A company in my city JUST finished a $250-million expansion onto their HQ right as COVID hit. That same land area is in a central location and was even being highly considered for high density housing before the company bought the land. The parking lot for the new building never gets more than half full. Fuck 'em.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tischkante@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 year ago

They try to rent those spaces where I live and its hilariously not working.

[–] just_change_it@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago (2 children)

commercial real estate values are one rationale but I don't really buy that unless you own the property. Lots of companies that don't own their property are doing it.

One big rationale behind forcing return to office is that it causes soft layoffs from all of the people who do not want to return to in person working. It's a great way to downsize without announcing layoffs and taking a share price hit.

[–] _Sc00ter@lemmy.ml 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A part of that real estate equation is that the municipalities give tax breaks to the companies because they anticipate the extra people in the area getting them more money from gas stations, lunches, etc. Those contracts usually state that the building needs to have a certain occupancy for them to maintain the credit... and now municipalities are coming knocking for their back taxes since buildings haven't been full.

Thats what's happening around me, at least

[–] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then I have the perfect solution! Burn the offices! :)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 11 points 1 year ago

Sunk cost. No matter if they buy or lease their building, it seems like a waste to have it empty all the time. But that money isn't coming back whether employees come in or not.

Hold out a couple more years for leases to expire. Office real estate market hasn't seen its bottom yet.

[–] LilDestructiveSheep@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well. Getting more and more obvious that employers want to "own" their employees. Just a number in the grid - pro tip: Don't mention that at work to a manager, ends terribly. Dead man talking.

[–] apollo440@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's really there from the beginning: you don't get paid to do work, you get paid for your time. What happens when you finish all your allotted tasks in 4 hours instead of 8, you think you can just go home?

That's why I don't finish my tasks as fast as I can :D

[–] TheLurker@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Hmm... The owners of the office buildings which are at record low occupancy are making up bullshit reasons why employees should return to the offices that they own.

Well colour me surprised.

This is right up there with the massive inflation we see right after spending two years printing money we didn't have.

I mean who could have seen it coming right? 🤷‍♂️

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm actually surprised that no one has blown up one of these ugly corporate campuses overnight yet, just so they can't be forced back in the office. God knows if there was a way for me to WFH when I was a sous chef, and a chef for 20 years I would have.

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

i just wish sycophants in the general public wouldn't believe them

[–] GreenMario@lemm.ee 28 points 1 year ago

Once you have enough money to buy anything, all thats left is power and high scores. That's why we should eat them.

[–] Yepthatsme@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Commercial real estate will tank and the economy will too.

The people who are in charge are shit planner’s because they just love money and pay to win at universities.

It doesn’t matter anyway because the environment collapse is cascading.

GLHF.

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

i love how we're supposed to accept the premise that because big companies starting gambling on office buildings (???? why would you do this???? why is it built like this?? why is this allowed??) everyone's life has to be measurably worse

[–] Cheers@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

The piece I love is that commercial real estate near me has not really even decreased since 2019, meaning, commercial real estate greed isn't abiding by supply and demand and they're trying to push their losses back on businesses. Workers need to stick it out until lease contracts loop back around and then we'll see who gets left holding the bag.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's interesting that we've had the tech to work from home for many jobs since probably the 70s or 80s and something like covid finally forced the hand of so many obstinate "leaders".

[–] obinice@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Grab power back? I wasn't aware the proletariat had made any real true legal progress for their rights in the first place, in, well, many decades. Especially not compared to everything we've lost in that time:-(

[–] downpunxx@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

Justify middle management headcount, and keep commercial real estate (and all the ancillary businesses like medium/high end center city restaurant chains) investments up

[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I think this speculative take is so popular because it gets a rise out of people, but it's much more likely that corporate real estate is just a real big asset on corporate balance sheets, and if everyone panic sells their offices at the same time that market will crash leaving corporations to hold the bag.

I know we want to believe that every senior manager on the planet is fragile masochist who needs to see their employees to feel big and strong and in control, but it's much more likely that this is related to finances.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

It can be multiple things.

Real estate costs that they are stuck with. For example, my employer committed to a 20 year lease shortly before the pandemic. They don't have a good exit clause so either those office towers are going to be empty or used, but either way, my employer is paying for them, might as well get use out of them.

Managers that have such a poor understanding of the work that they can't comfortably tell if the work output from their employees is good or slacking. At least being able to see them in person they feel more comfortable that the employee looks more likely to be engaged. It's still possible a slacker is conning them, but at least they aren't as obviously doing so. They may not be masochistic as much as they hired people that know more than they do, and are therefore at a severe disadvantage when evaluating an employee.

As others have pointed out, one mans annoying distraction is another employee's great help. A new hire that needed mentorship. A colleague stuck on a little thing without going out of their way to ask for help in a remote context.

Realistically, having some work from home for morale/better work life balance, and focused individual work and some in person time is probably the most productive scenario.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

They get tax breaks from the city to maintain a minimum occupancy. The cities were waiving those requirements during covid, and now they're not. It's that simple. The government and the corpos want their extra money from your pocket and they're insisting on behavior that will get it for them.

Agreed. #1 advice from anyone is "invest in real estate because it's the only thing they're not making any more of." So even if a huge corporation owns nothing and just rents every inch of office space, most likely their investment strategy includes commercial real estate.

Anecdotally, I happen to know of some people who threw a ton of money into local commercial buildings pre-pandemic, because that was the way the investor-class herd was going. These are people that I consider very wealthy, but are small potatoes compared to most of these big corporate CEO types. Now that they own all these buildings, they're squawking because they can't rent them.

[–] Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I think it can be both commercial real estate holdings, seeing what Big Tech and other prominent CEOs are doing and following their lead, and a way to cutt staff without official layoffs. (Since many people will quit rather than RTO since they no longer live close.to the office, or because they are close to retirement, or they take another position that is WFH or hybrid. I day this because those of some of the reasons my coworkers have quit rather than come in 2 or 3 days a week.)

[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

Very good point about forcing attrition, my only counter argument (for lack of a better word) would be that it's more dangerous than traditional layoffs since you don't get to choose which or exactly how many employees leave, and my guess is that there's reason to believe you'd lose a large number of senior employees who would have an easier time finding a different remote position.

However the benefits of not having to admit to actual layoffs might outweigh these cons for a lot of companies for sure.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›