And not by a small margin. What it definitely doesn’t improve are productivity, cooperation or efficiency. I know they want most of us gone, but couldn’t they’ve done it in a more efficient and less expensive way for all parties involved? A lot of people will still comply because the job market and costs of living are as they are. So everyone gets less for more. Really smart.
15 replies (most recent on top)
Gas, tolls, parking, increased wear and tear on vehicles, coffee/eating out, dry cleaning, increased expenditure on personal hygiene items (needing to shower everyday for the office vs every third day when WFH)...it all adds up.
Calling BS, nobody is forced to commute 4 hours away. It's literally a severable event.
I submit expense reports and get reimbursed, it’s great
Personally, I spend monthly commuting:
Time: 36 hours
Expense: $264
People I work with in the office I'm forced to go to: Zero/Nada
What about those of us that was hired to work remote and are now being forced back to the office, even if that office we are being forced into is 4 hrs away and there are locations 20 mins away. Please do not give me the central location mess as most of my teammates are on India and my manager 12 hrs away
Im not going anything until that POS in HY writes me a years worth of checks. That will make me happy again. F the bootlickers and F Shart. He'll leave in a year or two and it'll be the best thing that ever happened to WF. Then we just have to hope that his successor isn't equally incompetent.
how is any of this new info? during covid those of us that were commuting, which was the vast majority, save money. Now that we are commuting again we have to pay this costs; gas, mass transit, parking, time, etc. I personally am paying $300 per mo and 2 hours per day, but it is what it is. Nothing new. If you aren't happy I suggest you go find a remote job somewhere.
Chuckles refused to move to San Francisco, the original HUB location, but expects you to move. That should tell you everything you need to know about how he feels about anyone not from JO Morgan Chase.
We found Shart's shadow account.
For most WF roles, it's a waste of time. So your people are less available and doing less and you're paying more for it. Not a little more, hundreds of millions more. Also way more risk. Much worse retention. If everyone was WFH you'd only need like 5 HR people. This company wastes an incredible amount of money on garbage that has nothing to do with customers or any individuals work product. Any idea how much this company burns on landscaping? Remodels? Security? Architects? Building management contracts? Power? Water? HVAC? Repair vendors? I was WFH before da vid, and thanks to the mental mid-et in NY I've been driving to the office a few times a week the last two years. Not a single benefit has resulted from that "investment". I don't mean that it rarely happens, it's never happened. Not once. So, sparky, go ahead and tell the class how spending millions for no benefit is what the business should be doing.
This scheme is about nothing more than reducing severance costs. They want people to leave, so they torment us in the hopes that we'll give up and bail. That's all it's about, and all is even been about. It not making sense is a feature, not a bug. The less sense it makes the more the torment.
That's clowns want us all gone. Including you. Do what you want, but defending the id--tic right before you're handed a pink slip is going to look pretty silly.
"So tell me the numbers and show the class how you have been paid a wage that was artificially lower based on a work from home stipulation and now you are facing some undue burden of costs for going in to a work site?
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
And while you spin that yarn I’ll go ahead and cut to the chase of Things that Didn’t Happen for $2000 Alex. But That doesn’t fit the narrative anti-RTO proponents push."
What is this guy even going on about? I got more promotions and made more than I ever have while I worked from home long before COVID-19 pushed everyone remote. There was no lower wage stipulation.
OP is absolutely right. Commuting to an office has both a material and time cost. And frankly, remote employees should be paid more given the cost savings for the company. It's a win-win. Less cost for employee and less cost for employer.
Lastly, the anti-RTO proponents are a large majority, who also happen to be backed by mounting evidence that it's better for productivity and ultimately company health. I realize this makes insecure managers who lack leadership ability a bit uncomfortable, but whatever.
If you weren't working from home before, how does it increase personal expenses?
I pay a 1% income tax since RTO on top of the other expenses of having to drive in.
Instant cut in income.
“It's all about the money, boys!” (O Brother, Where Art Thou?)
Cities want you to spend your money on their businesses so they can collect more taxes on those businesses. Thus, they are pressuring companies to get you back into the seats. They do not care about your well being.
@pfb Tell us how working remotely harmed you or others?
So tell me the numbers and show the class how you have been paid a wage that was artificially lower based on a work from home stipulation and now you are facing some undue burden of costs for going in to a work site?
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
And while you spin that yarn I’ll go ahead and cut to the chase of Things that Didn’t Happen for $2000 Alex. But That doesn’t fit the narrative anti-RTO proponents push.