824
Rule-follower
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2026
824 points (98.8% liked)
Humor
9428 readers
60 users here now
"Laugh-a-Palooza: Unleash Your Inner Chuckle!"
Rules
Read Full Rules Here!
Rule 1: Keep it light-hearted. This community is dedicated to humor and laughter, so let’s keep the tone light and positive.
Rule 2: Respectful Engagement. Keep it civil!
Rule 3: No spamming! AI slop will be considered spam at the discretion of moderators
Rule 4: No explicit or NSFW content.
Rule 5: Stay on topic. Keep your posts relevant to humor-related topics.
Rule 6: Moderators Discretion. The moderators retain the right to remove any content, ban users/bots if deemed necessary.
Please report any violation of rules!
Warning: Strict compliance with all the rules is imperative. Failure to read and adhere to them will not be tolerated. Violations may result in immediate removal of your content and a permanent ban from the community.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
To this day I have no idea why the return to the office 100% mandate is an industry standard. We lost a ton of qualified people to companies offering WFH, can’t hire the people we want since those candidates don’t want to relocate, and moral is shot across the company. I’m leaving this company in favor of one that offers partial WFH and more benefits.
Edit additional bonus content:
Many economies have the daily commute factored in. Think about how industries like auto, oil, road construction, fast food, etc... Would be affected if everyone worked from home.
The companies won't allow having a mostly empty space that they are paying for. you on the other hand can have a mostly empty space (your home) that you are paying for while you work in the office. The companies' expenses are more important than yours.
My workplace did the opposite of mandatory RTO and reduced the space they're renting in half (from 2 floors of a business center to 1). It means we have to hotdesk whenever we do need to work in the office, but that's a small price to pay.
Sounds like a great place to work. I’ve always maintained a sparse work space so this would be perfect for me lol
There is no why; you are trying to explain irrational behavior with reason and logic. And so by leaving you contribute to the downfall of irrationalism in business. Bravo!
What blows my mind is the fact that the return to office policy doesn’t help ANYONE. The company continues to pay to run a physical building with limited seating, makes the company pay expensive contractors for repairs/parking/security/etc, and kills productivity across the board. People are worried about leaving on time or else they’ll be stuck in traffic, instead of worrying about finishing an important task.
American business leadership tends to think level of income is correlated with effort, and as a consequence assume anyone below them on the corporate ladder is a lazy bum. Lazy bums obviously need to be in the office so they can be supervised. Evidence to the contrary is just exceptions to the rule, and cannot dictate policy.
See also: Prosperity Gospel, Calvinism.
Income is correlated with effort, just inversely
Income is mostly inversely correlated with how much the work improves society. Source: David Graeber
If the company owns the office buildings then no tenants would devalue the asset.
It satisfies the desire of those at the top who don't believe work gets done if they can't see it physically happen.
Soft firing without having to pay severance. That makes their quarterly numbers look better, which in turn makes stocks and thus their compensation package go up.
Of course it will probably kill the company in the long run, but by then the board will have elected a fall guy to blame and they will all jump out with their golden parachutes, leaving the rest of you to burn.
Yea I’ve seen this but it’s an insane tactic. This targets the people who have options and are talented. They’re also impossible to replace since even a perfect new hire won’t have the 20 years of company experience that the old employee had. I guess most companies today don’t actually care about their own company.
If you think about the corporation as a vehicle for investor capital rather than an entity which provides services, the prevalence of this decision makes a lot more sense.
Correct.
In many cases because of "fiduciary responsibility" it is quite literally illegal for a company to prioritize long term sustainability over quick profits. Every single company who has opened an IPO and begun selling stock has committed long form suicide.
No joke honest to god it is actually a conspiracy, the land value in cities started to plummet so the governor started going around making not so veld threats about keeping people in office and the corporations wanted to work in the cities so they complied ... For now money always wins it will just take longer.
It's because leadership is a heady cocktail of stupid and selfish.
I really want to stress stupid. That means they draw bad conclusions from facts.
Sometimes selfish is a factor. They have an obscure reason like "my share value goes up because we get a kickback from the city for staffing an office here". They don't care if it's bad for everyone else or the company long term. They'll get their money and then leave.
The people running companies no longer understand what the companies do.
This is actually an escalation, when I was younger, the people running companies understood what the company did, they didn't understand what anybody working for them actually did, but they did know they were building airplanes or filling tax returns.
Today, the Epstein class has completely disconnected and random idiots are now in charge. Look at Nadella at Microsoft, that guy has been filtering everything he hears through copilot for two years now, you think he knows fuck about shit?
I think it's a variety of factors and a lot of decision makers failing to view the picture holistically (optimistic view) or just being malicious (pessimistic).
I think ultimately it's short sighted. I think companies that actually are facing problems with WFH (and not just being malicious) should try to address them in different ways instead of just killing it off.
Re 1, my CEO came up with an innovative solution. He decided to significantly downsize our office space when it came time for the lease renewal, and passed the savings on to the shareholders!
I value WFH pretty highly myself, so honestly I'd consider it passed to me as well if it meant not having to RTO.
That is an argument to downsize at lower cost, not to return to the office.
Absolutely not. Teams calls with ability to share screen are superior to face to face meetings. Teams meetings take less time, are more efficient and more convenient. Camera is needed.
This is about managerial oversight and individual staff.
It is not. If you want to make people redundant, you need to target crap workers, not good workers. And it is good workers which are more likely to leave if you try to force them back.
Sadly, but it is irrational.
Just started a fully in office job for the first time in years. The job market is shit and I've got bills to pay. Planning to leave for another WFH job ASAP.
Working from talking to a customer that works in same industry, but they have to go to an office to just talk on the phone and do exact same job as me. Fucking stupid. Corporations are dumb as hell.
Free market at work I guess
Which industry?