[aphextron]

We just need to make the office an optional place that people can gather when they feel the need to. I have no problem at all working a 5 day 40 hours work week from home. But this nonsense of everyone waking up at the same time, sitting in traffic, and cramming into "open plan" work spaces has to go.

[tehjoker]

I'm concerned that if we go this route on a permanent basis without a more powerful labor movement, it'll mean that work and home will seamlessly merge. Employer surveillance will enter the home and corporate domination will seep into every pore of our existence... and that's for white collar workers.

[fiblye]

If work from home ends up really sticking around, I'm sure plenty of cost-cutting employers will expect everyone to buy their own computers, but expect employees to all install keyloggers and monitoring software in order to work.

And people will accept it, because they'll be fired if they refuse and someone more desperate will deal with it so long as they get paid at some point.

[JSavageOne]

> And people will accept it

I definitely never think about working at any company that wanted employees installing keyloggers. As software engineers thankfully we're in enough demand to where I don't see it getting that extreme, but I could see that scenario for more oversupplied industries. In any case, the requirement of that kind of surveillance software to do one's job should be made illegal.

[TAForObvReasons]

It's already happened in the freelancing / lower-level software work, time tracking apps and the like are common on upwork.

[tehjoker]

I hate to always be that guy, but this is the sort of situation in which one might wield the strike, a coordinated worker action, to prevent home spyware from being installed. If you work within a framework of uncoordinated individual action, domination of the individual by the interests of the corporation is the logical result.

[fiblye]

I'd like to hope that would happen, but I'm more afraid there'd be media/government complaints of "lazy workers with the privilege of working at home and doing nothing are STRIKING!" and people would eat it up.

There are people out there saying a minimum wage of $7.25 is too high and we should get rid of it entirely. I think in many places, workers would fear they'll lose even more by striking for privacy.

[tehjoker]

That's true. The anti-union propaganda would be present. The trick is making sure your message gets out there too and emphasizes the contradictions between the employer's desire and power to compel people to submit to invasive surveillance in their own homes and our rights to be free of such invasive measures through relatable stories.

The people that take the side of the employer are broadly the corporate owned media, but when hearing the labor side of the story, the public is often sympathetic because the majority of people are workers, not employers.

> There are people out there saying a minimum wage of $7.25 is too high and we should get rid of it entirely.

Those people are not the ones being subjected to such wages. People's political analysis is largely directed by material self interest. The vast majority of the population is made of precarious workers who resent the people that would say that.

[adrianN]

Keyloggers and monitoring software are illegal even on employer issued computers in Germany afaik.

[capdeck]

It will all be done in the name of "security" - in this case you don't have to justify or even explain what security issue your are trying to solve. And security software vendors will helpfully lend you an amazingly designed fear-mongering powerpoint.

[adrianN]

Even in the name of security you can't take away certain privacy privileges in Germany, as far as I understand the laws.

[eikenberry]

And those employers will suffer for it by getting sub-standard employee as the competent ones will find jobs at places that don't play big brother.

They could possibly get away with it by paying exceedingly well. But that would afford workarounds, like buying a work-only computer for the spyware to live on.

[adrianN]

Maybe if you restrict yourself to programmers. Most office workers probably don't understand the implications of surveillance software and I doubt that many of them would go through the extra effort of using a separate computer.

[akhilcacharya]

More likely that they'll just normalize RDP-ing into cloud desktops. I know someone that just joined my company that has to do this while his new work laptop ships.

[icelancer]

If WFH becomes permanent on any sort of meaningful basis, outsourcing companies are going to lobby very hard while companies are simultaneously trying to cut costs. People who are enjoying this WFH revolution would do well to think about secondary effects.

[kube-system]

Many workplaces have been moving in this direction over the past decade. Not only do employees love it; there are also serious cost savings for employers.

Pretty much everyone wants to go this direction. The problem is that there are still serious hurdles in place -- mainly due to the nature of the work, or cultural/interpersonal challenges.

[adrianN]

I think you're living in a bubble if you believe that everyone wants to go into that direction. At least here in Germany, butts in seats is still very important. The only office workers I know who can work from home during the pandemic are programmers. Everyone else still has to go to the office.

[kube-system]

I don’t think employees want to waste time commuting and employers want to waste money on real estate.

The reason most people still go to the office is because of the hurdles I mentioned above.

Yes, there is certainly a lot of work can’t be done behind a computer, or workforces that can’t effectively collaborate over a computer. But I don’t think that means they wouldn’t if they could.

[eweise]

Sorry it won't happen. An office packed with humans is all about stroking the CEOs ego. Its just not the same seeing your servants on a screen vs packed together doing the boss's bidding.

[abyssin]

I disagree. Although offices can have their downsides, I personally can't work remotely because I find it so cold and boring.

[Jaruzel]

It's all about choice. Employees should be able to work in the environment that is best for their well-being. Happier employees tends to result in increased productivity.

[esyir]

It's also about productivity. If the employee functions significantly worse in a remote position, then extending that to them is going to be often a poor decision.

[JackMorgan]

I feel like I'm struggling with this now: I have fought for a long time to get my team to be fully remote. After a year of partial WFH, now we're doing it full time. However, several people on my team seem completely incapable of self-regulation unless someone is making them show up. They're up at 3am working, but clearly only getting done >5% of what they'd otherwise do. A few others are getting done at least 120% more. Seems like different strokes for different folks is the name of the game, and some people for whatever reason just aren't in a place in their lives where they are responsible enough to handle the greater freedom of remote work.

[labster]

But closing the office pads the CEO's pocketbook! So some will choose to close offices but others will keep it open. It will probably be divided between companies whose CEO is motivated primarily by money or by motivated by power.

[JSavageOne]

Yes this is true. Employers have so much leverage in this labor market, and nobody ever got promoted in a large corporation for promoting workers' rights.

The only solution seems to be:

1. Universal Basic Income - ie. giving people the freedom to say no to sh*tty jobs rather than being forced to take the least bad offer

2. Make a law that gives employees the right to work remotely if their job can reasonably be done remotely

[saiya-jin]

Is there some new godwin's law that any non-technical discussion will in X steps derail into 'UBI-is-the-only-solution' ?

[JSavageOne]

Maybe when the discussion is labor rights