this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
181 points (98.9% liked)

Antiwork

8259 readers
23 users here now

  1. We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Employers who force staff to return to the office five days a week have been called the “dinosaurs of our age” by one of the world’s leading experts who coined the term “presenteeism”.

Sir Cary Cooper, a professor of organisational psychology and health at the University of Manchester’s Alliance Manchester Business School, said employers imposing strict requirements on staff to be in the office risked driving away talented workers, damaging the wellbeing of employees and undermining their financial performance.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 month ago (3 children)

My company tried it...and now they have hybrid work schedules after employees with decades of experience left the company for remote work jobs.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Same. Or rather, I should say my previous employer

Triggered an exodus, they did

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Here's hoping Amazon becomes a shell

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The Dead Sea Effect is a real thing.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

after employees with decades of experience left the company for remote work jobs.

Corporate still won. Those were the most expensive employees, and companies are proving time and time again that they just want output and not quality.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I appreciate your opinion, but they most definitely didn't. It wasn't just a few people. It was a lot of people in a relatively short time, and they didn't always give two weeks notice. The higher ups saw the writing on the wall.

Also, they aren't 100% profit-driven, because they're not publicly traded, so they have more incentive to sometimes improve working conditions just for the sake of morale.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fair enough, I was basing my opinion on what some of the FAANG companies were doing to get rid of veteran staff by giving them the WFH ultimatum.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah thankfully, it's not complete corporate hell (just partial).

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago

So… Amazon (the latest big name, not the only one)

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago

I'm interviewing next week for a job that wants hybrid for a fully-remote-capable position. I don't need a job. I hate that company anyway.

I'll be asking them to justify their decree and asking how they want to pay the 20% surcharge - in the pay or separately - if I nail the interview.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

As a rule, I don't read anything by someone who puts "sir" in their name

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

What if it is put in their name by someone else?

Throughout the rest of the article the professor is just referred to as Cooper.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Do you believe that people should use job titles they no longer hold?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I don't think we should be using such terms to address people, generally.

Use your name. Don't prefix it with "President" or "Sir" or whatever. This was done to establish hierarchy, but we as a society need to recognize that no person is superior to another person. By just using a name (and eliminating the title), you recognize equality amongst people.

Sure, you can have a title that indicates what cog in a org you currently occupy, but it shouldn't be used in your name.