• anon_8675309@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    That’s part of it. Another part is middle management can’t function without seeing you. Finally, it’s not worth it to a company to maintain a lease on a building if nobody works there and it’s not easy getting out of those leases.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      What doesn’t make sense is why they’re not firing the useless middle managers.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The lease is already paid, or the money is planned to be paid. You can’t recover this money anyway. But you can still save on energy and cleaning.

      Getting out of the lease is as easy as not renewing it.

      • isles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yes, it is that easy. Commercial leases are often in the 10-20 year range, however.

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’m skeptical a company would take that. They want to be able to shut down contracts with employee on a whim but somehow they would engage for a 20 years in a building? If it’s not a big industry I severely doubt it, and those are rarely I city centers for obvious reasons.

          • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            You’re right logically.

            I suspect the difference we see in reality is due to graft, bribery, money laundering and outright fraud that went into those contract negotiations.

    • triclops6@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      I agree with most of this except the lease is a sunk cost, making people come in based on a variable that won’t change is bad decision making, the discussion should be made independently of lease. I agree some managers think this way, it’s usually the ones who could benefit from remedial business finance classes.

      • Etterra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yes and no. It’s more like a trap that the company is trapped in. It’s the corporate equivalent of having to keep renting an apartment you don’t live in anymore and can’t sub-let. The sunk cost fallacy applies, but also it’s a case of “we’re stuck with this and we’re going to USE it even if it kills our wage slaves.”

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        The larger issue may be that companies occupying the buildings supports interests of the owning class, and so its influence is being applied accordingly to shape the larger social forces.

  • starbreaker@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’m not going to quit or return to the cubefarm. These coprophagous donkey molesters can fucking well fire me and pay unemployment.

  • ArdMacha@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    It isn’t, it’s all the office space they own, if people are allowed to keep working from home the retail office market will crash pretty hard.

    • MechanicalJester@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Ever see how much real estate companies like Google has? If all those bay area companies said fuckit let’s be remote it would crash the market and rock the economy.

      We should though, if possible.

      • TallonMetroid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m told that office buildings are actually terrible from a housing standpoint. Like, it’s actually easier to just tear the whole thing down and build an entirely new complex than convert it into apartments.

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Perhaps. There are other possible uses, though, such as commons spaces. Also, even housing that has a quirky design may carry value, within the context, in symbolizing transformation away from the old.

          • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            My town has been stuck fighting over rezoning for decades. The urban sprawling is fucked. So many empty lots and buildings while the suburbs fight to keep half acre lots as single family zoning. Add in poor mass transit and it is an ugly mess

            • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              Certainly, it is expected that politicians operate on the same side as developers and owners, and that all such parties insulate themselves from the population through NIMBY.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      No one cares about retail office market. A market bubble crashing is merely an opportunity to earn money for the others. Capitalism doesn’t care about losers.

      • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        America only has capitalism for the poor. For the rich, it’s socialism. You better believe retail office owners stand to be losers, and they have power to fight.

        • ArdMacha@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          There is no money to be earned though if nobody needs office space then all those offices will need to be converted to living space which will reduce the price of domestic homes too.

          • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            The rich want companies to want office space, simply because the rich want their office space to be wanted.

    • Wutangforemer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Few organizations own their own office space, most lease. So it’s not so much “they”, the CEOs that want you to return to work, but “they”, the venture capitalists (whom the CEOs answer to). These investors have a stake not only in the organization, but separately have investments in commercial office real estate that they stand to lose money on if those leases aren’t renewed.

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        In principle, municipalities could gain control of the assets.

        Little doubt, if a course were followed, the previous owners would be compensated at outrageously inflated prices, defended as rescuing the investors, but nevertheless, control by the public, in the sense of genuine control by the public rather than control by corporations pretending to be concerned for the public, could open pathways for many opportunities toward social interests.

  • jmd_akbar@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Copying my reply from another similar post -

    I would lose my control over my minions… Why don’t you understand?

    Whoops, I meant, my staff can’t be monitored…

    Whoops, I actually meant, I will lose the one place in life where I can actually throw around my power…

    /s

    • LavaPlanet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s what I was thinking, it essentially makes bosses obsolete and they don’t want the system to be deconstructed from the top down, ever. That’s toppling capitalism, kinda talk.

    • Zorque@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      Then they get to fire you for non-compliance. And you don’t get to collect unemployment. Basically the same as quitting for them.

            • Zorque@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              Nice, in theory, proving it is the real problem. Meanwhile you’re not getting paid and they have an entire fund just for lawyering you into submission.

              • RepulsiveDog4415@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Yeah, that’s why unions are so important… Without one in that situation you’re fucked.

                Kinda baffling to me most tech-companies don’t have one. I get they’re attempting to stop unionising but they can’t easily be replace their whole workforce at once. They’d loose all their know how…

  • tym@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    9 months ago

    Middle manager here: they want you to quit, and me to do your job plus the jobs of the other 3 who just left after you’re gone.

    • soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      What do middle managers do in WFH jobs? Most companies I’ve worked in have as many “managers” as bottom level employees. It’s hilarious

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m a middle manager. I run reports to make sure my team is doing what they’re supposed to do and identify things they need to be coached on if they’re falling short. I also attend meetings with other teams to figure out solutions to things my team collaborates with them on.

      • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        In the best case, mentoring.

        In the worst case, produce carbon dioxide, which the plants would need if they weren’t plastic and only in the central office thousands of miles away.

  • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Still seems to me the idea of “if people don’t come back into work the real estate market implodes” is the most convincing.

    Commuters vaporizing and countless city blocks losing their purpose will cause huge upheaval in the real estate market.

    And turns out a /lot/ of CEOs have a vested interest in keeping the real estate market artificially propped up.

    Thus, they try and force people back to work as hard as they can.

    It won’t last, the big companies that don’t give a shit about real estate due to being even bigger in scale will out compete and the international market will absorb most of the workforce.

    If you shackle your success to real estate, then you can’t compete with international megacorps that saw this coming awhile ago. Prepare to be acquired.

        • mwguy@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          Synthic CDOs were just one example of the problem we didn’t learn. There’s a whole logic, risk and visibility problem around derivatives of derivatives. The fact that the CFTC has suspended swap reporting, and that we have a derivatives markets that is so massive and then we have derivatives (like swaps) based on those derivatives is a system designed to fail.

          The derivatives market is over $1 quadrillion dollars large.

          • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            9 months ago

            Not talking about the housing market here, talking about the Real Estate market, which the housing market is certainly a subset of, but not what is going to be as big of a player in this issue.

            The issue at hand in this case are massive, but vacant, skyrise business focused buildings. And of course the countless giant concrete cubes all over the place in every major city that used to house hundreds of employees and now largely… dont need to. At least not as many, and now 1 of those cubes could be plenty to house several entire businesses, instead of 1.

            Hell a company I used to work at was in a giant building and even though it was growing, it was only using maybe 1/5th of its total rooms. Half the hallways were completely vacant and you could walk down rows and rows and rows of dark closed off rooms with just a table and chair in them, lights out.

            And that was before the pandemic, post pandemic the entire building had like 3 people in it for a long while, and even when some people filtered back it largely stayed a ghost town. I dunno if they cut their losses and moved to a much much cheaper option to save tonnes of money (I hope they did, it would be a smart choice), but last I saw the place was super empty.

            And when this happens, suddenly the property values of an uncountable amount of real estate will plummet. And a LOT of people have a LOT of money banked on that not happening.

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Well, some tried to start a movement, but the police came eventually to stop it.

        I learned that the working class faces ahead of it a long struggle , and has no friend in ACAB.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s a conspiracy theory. Most companies have no interest in keeping high housing market prices, because it increases the wages they pay to their workers and it increases the lease for their offices.

      I have not seen any evidence of a ceo needing the office market to stay high. Some companies renting those building? Sure! But most ceo don’t care about those.

      Managers though can’t adapt to remote working teams, and they must justify their use to the company. A ceo will also be very easy to convince that people won’t work if they’re left alone at home, eventhough all studies prove the opposite. There is a toxic culture within the management and directors that workers won’t work if they aren’t under a leash.

  • UsernameHere@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Or maybe…

    CEO 1: “Our plan to force everyone back to the office isnt working. They’re just quitting”

    CEO 2: “Ok new narrative, convince them it was our plan to get them to quit, and keep forcing them to return to office.”

  • Cheers@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    9 months ago

    Hey who knew that the best way to make money as a company is have very few workers and be an amazing talker that can dupe others into investing into your pile of shit. Oh wait, Holmes, Neuman and Bankman-fried already came up with that business model. The innovation on that model is just don’t get caught.

  • murmelade@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Or is this op-ed 3D chess reverse psychology to get you back into the office?

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    There’s an often overlooked part that you could call the “extrovert factor.” There’s always plenty of coworkers that thrive in group settings. Some number, maybe most, middle managers are extroverts, and when forced to work the way the average minion does, they suffer. It’s why they became middle managers in the first place. Their productivity suffers in isolation too, so when converted into a wage slave, they can’t complete with less extroverted people. Unfortunately they’re better situated to promote their own success, getting by in people skills while more competent people get screwed.

    Extroverts also seem to suffer in productivity during WFH, even if they aren’t managers. They are stuck in a situation that hurts their functionality, offsetting the statistics. If they actually broke down WFH productivity by job description, I suspect that the extrovert/introvert factor will be a huge determiner of productivity.

    Optional office hours seem the best fix, but the corporate attitude of obsessively monitoring the workers to be sure they’re not wasting time and therefore money is another factor that makes these companies want to favor their preconceptions. The confirmation bias kicks in and then we have to listen to them focus on it.

    • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      There may be some accuracy in your analysis about the causes for differences in preferences, but a broader issue might be the poverty of opportunities for meaningful social interaction outside the alienated relationships of the workplace.

  • hahattpro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Some work from home dude cheat the system to work 2 full-time job at a same time. Not anymore. Well done CEO.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    I thought my employer wants me to come in is because a lot of my work is hands on. Kinda hard to debug an electrical problem remotely.

  • Porka_911@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    9 months ago

    Hopefully the hybrid model is here to stay. I actually prefer being in the office. The only negative of going in for me is the commute.

    • geekworking@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      9 months ago

      Hybrid is only good if the employee has the choice.

      Pre-pandemic I was in an office of people I liked about 10 min from home. I’d go back to that, no problem.

      My prior job was 1-2 hours each way due to traffic, and I was in a room by myself. I wouldn’t go back to that.

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Some may have relatively pleasant commutes, but a problem with employee choice is that some will exercise the choice to make them effectively as scabs, limiting the options of others by making them appear as less valuable to the employer.

        It would be best if workers as a class seized the newly opened opportunities to build community close to their own residential neighborhoods, helping to begin challenging the imposed conditions under which the workplace is so dominant a locus of social interaction.

    • krayj@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The only negative of going in for me is the commute

      That’s a pretty HUGE negative. Calculate how much time is wasted by your commute, calculate how much your transportation costs are, and then use that info to recalculate your compensation.

      For me, commuting is aprox 1 hour each way (I’m only 27 miles away, but traffic is bullshit), and it costs me about $8 per day (that’s the cost of driving to a nearby park&ride and taking public transportation the rest of the way into the city & back). That’s 44 lost hours of free time EVERY MONTH, plus $176 lost out-of-pocket each month just to commute (this is based on an average month with 22 work days). And don’t even suggest I move/live closer to work, cost of housing grows exponentially the closer you get to the city.

      I don’t understand how anyone can be in favor of commuting in to a job site if it isn’t absolutely essential for the type of work being done.

      • Rolder@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I don’t mind going in once or twice because when I was pure WFH, the lack of human interaction started to drive me a little crazy. Course, I’m also single which doesn’t help.

        Edit: and it’s a ~25min drive

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I have zero desire to be a shared corporate office space for work, but if thats what works for you, I’m glad you have that choice.

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      If only the people who wanted to go in went in there’d be practically no commutes. There’d be a lot less reason to have an office, but people can self-select jobs for that, too.

    • clif@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s rare, but I’m the same way. It helps that my commute is 10 minutes in a relatively small city and there’s next to zero traffic due to the small size and hours I work. If I had a horrific, or even mildly annoying, commute then I’d feel very different about it. I’ve turned down higher paying jobs because they required a 45min-1hr one way drive through shit traffic… And that was in 2018 and again in 2021 when that company had already forced everyone back into the office. They’re huge on “you must be in the office” and COVID didn’t change it for them.

      I like to have the physical distinction of “office is for work, home is for not work”. But, I also love the option of work from home. Planning to leave early for a long weekend? WFH that day so I can hop in the car as soon as I’m done. Dentist appointment at 0800? WFH for the morning, drive to dentist, continue on into the office afterwards.

      I know I’m lucky with my current convenient commute… I couldn’t handle what a lot of people do and if I was in that position I’d maybe go into the office once a week if at all.