The forced return to the office is the definition of insanity
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
Thats what I was thinking, that is more of a person issue. Some people do take advantage though, but from what I have seen they do they same thing at the office. Some people are just turds and wastes of skin.
Exactly. I still remember the days when GS's would take 2-3 hour lunch's to golf at the O-Club.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Precisely. The kind of shmuck who would take advantage of goofing off at home is certainly already doing it when in person at the office.
I think what startles me is that, some years back, a work from home model was what EVERYONE said was ultimately coming; because, in fact, MANY businesses make a profit doing exactly that. My sister has been doing it for over a decade in her company. THIS was exactly the "wave" that was coming. And think - we'd save so much not maintaining buildings and facilities that serve no purpose except to house people while they worked - work they could do without leaving home.
Circumstances then forced it upon us for so many of us to do just that. NOW for some reason, it's a bad thing.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
I still know people that will spend an hour at the gym, then go for a run, and finally shower during work and they are the same people that will bitch about how long actual work takes.
I took a $12k cut in pay to quit the DC commute and work local at Pax. Saved me parking fees, gas, wear and tear on the car, and 4 hours a day for the commute. Never regretted that decision. That gave me 4 more hours a day with the family.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
To quote Tony Stark, no amount of money ever bought even a second of time.
Grumpy
Well-Known Member
^yeahthat
When I worked in DC on a govt contract, we were allowed to work from home on occasion, BUT our work area at home had to be inspected by an OSHA rep first. I doubt that is still the case but I don't know since I am no longer tied to a govt contract.
Didn't he spent his fortune building an actual time machine?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
My BOSS used to ask me to join him and others to go to the gym - during work hours. I wouldn't. Just seemed like something someone would smack me with later on.
I think some maybe realizing how little gets done in the office, that workers are not engaged 70 / 80 / 90 % of the day ... there is a lot of time wasted talking to co-workers in the next cube over, in the kitchen grabbing a mid morning snack or at the water cooler .. but someone how that is accetable ... but let someone at home be not as engaged and suddenly they are ' wasting ' time
I've heard of this happening ... as your employer can be held accountable for workplace injuries if you slip and fall on your way to the bathroom
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
So, people who have "..time wasted talking to co-workers in the next cube over, in the kitchen grabbing a mid morning snack or at the water cooler." are now somehow miraculously 100% involved with work when they are home? If modern times have taught us ANYTHING, it is that people will scam whenever they can. PERIOD! EVERYONE!
Proof right here. I doubt that vast majority of anyone reading this gets PAID to be here.
It's a bad thing to the people that only care about capitalism and growth. People not commuting means less gas is being used, less restaurants being used on lunch breaks, less need to pay rent to the all important office buildings etc.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
If "corporations" and "businesses" are saving OH SO MUCH money by not keeping offices open, the lights on, other utility costs, and all the other little charges that accompany on-site employees ANNNDDDD... they are seeing SO MUCH MORE production....
Why are they wanting employees back to working on-site?
We all know that when it comes down to it at a very basic level, it is ALL about profit and loss. THE MONEY! If these businesses are so flush with cash due to BOOMING worker productivity while "working from home" then why are they opining that employees need to be back?
Loneliness.
In all seriousness, likely micromanaging ####s that arent' happy unless they're standing over someone.
Terrified their boss will notice that if the work is getting done and the employee is not there, what would he need them for?
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
In all seriousness, the "bigger" bosses are gonna sign off on expending all those extra dollars that they were able to save due to the BOOMING productivity levels just to appease some mid-level manager???
BOARD: Why are we spending $12,000 per month to open the old building? Aren't we making YUGE gains from workers at home?
BIG BOSS: Well, it's because John feels that he needs to manage the people at the office.
BOARD: Can't we get rid of John and hire someone who CAN manage the people outside the office AND pay them less to do so?
^^^ This seems like the likely scenario in a situation where "work-from-home" productivity is BOOMING
They'll believe the information they're given.In all seriousness, the "bigger" bosses are gonna sign off on expending all those extra dollars that they were able to save due to the BOOMING productivity levels just to appease some mid-level manager???
BOARD: Why are we spending $12,000 per month to open the old building? Aren't we making YUGE gains from workers at home?
BIG BOSS: Well, it's because John feels that he needs to manage the people at the office.
BOARD: Can't we get rid of John and hire someone who CAN manage the people outside the office AND pay them less to do so?
^^^ This seems like the likely scenario in a situation where "work-from-home" productivity is BOOMING
And I never said that it was Booming.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
True! And if they are given what is purported throughout the news cycle and what is being collected as "data," then they would be questioning the reasoning as to why a business would expend any amount of profit (be it BOOMING or just a little profit) to satisfy the whims of some piss poor managers.
The reason why there is a call for "back-to-office" is simply because it is more profitable to have employees in the office than it is to have them work from home.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Well one - it's government. They generally don't give a rat's ass about what is most cost effective.
For another - the people making those decisions aren't part of the money part of it - they're busy "reinventing" things and doing "reorganization" stuff - as it stands now, we will have three agencies crammed into a building that was too small for ONE - and THAT is a GSA decision.
Basically - bureacratic wastefulness. Not a single soul is hawking efficiiency or money savings.
What's exasperating is - BECAUSE so many people - thanks to GSA - now have to use the same building - lots of people who weren't teleworking before will HAVE TO, because there simply isn't enough space. Worse, they are planning a kiosk system where you don't even know WHERE you will be sitting on a day you come in - you have to check in and they will fit you in SOMEWHERE.
They're so proud of their idea - but it is seriously stupid and defeats the whole rationale for everyone coming in - at all.