The trick there is to work remotely. You can just build software, make art, do your own side-business 8hrs/day while hitting the employer's bar of "I'll keep paying this guy" and keep that income flowing.
I would like to see a government sponsored campaign on the benefits of working at home. I feel like most employers are counting the seconds until they can bring us back in? "You can All come back to the office! I bet you have been waiting for this? Marg had a baby over Covid? We increased the lux rat of our office lighting--yea! Jerry Suckup made assistant to the assistant manager, but this is on a probationary basis. Gas up the jalopy, and come in! Oh yea, we have a new facial recognition system instead of a punch clock. Those kooky tech guys?"
The benifits I see:
1. No commute. (Getting cars off the road is good for global warming?) And my sanity when I do need to go somewhere.
2. More sleep.
3. Less busy work to keep some middle manager happy.
4. Happier employee.
5. I have no clue over productivity.
negatives:
1. I guess schmoozing is important for some people. I did make most of my younger self's friends at work because we were both at the same lousy job?
2. Some people find office banter comradery important for their mental health? I used to be one of those people, but would happily give up a little socialization for more sleep, and less hrs driving.
If the government spent some tax money on a campaign to keep workers home, if the job was doable at home, I would be behind it.
I wouldn't even mind if they gave credits to employers who didn't drag their employees into a office.
Frame the promotion over Global Warming, and not employee satisfaction. We all know employees are way down on the list of what they care about, but a tax credit, and some kind of carbon rebate whatnot might keep many of us home? And less cars on the road. In my county, it seemed like everyone went out and bought a second car. Traffic is back to unbearable in the Bay Area.
If you produce [salary]$ worth of value, then it does not really matter how you produce it, right?
I'm not GP, and I'm self-employed, but I think it's fair to compensate people based on the value they create, and not how much time they spend at the office. If a guy gets his work done in half the time, and his employer is happy with the cost, then everyone gets what they want.
Companies pay as little as required not to lose employees or break laws. Work is a transaction, and it looks like both that person and their employer are satisfied with the arrangement.
Normally, yeah, sure. But sometimes not. Sometimes the world isn't such a shitty place. Sometimes an employer will decide to take a chance on an employee and invest in them, and pay them more than they need to. Sometimes that same employee will decide to work harder than they need to in order to achieve the goal they share with that employer.
I certainly don't run my business by paying all my staff the absolute bare minimum I need to so they can do work that is just-as-good-but-no-better than needed.
For a company reliant on innovation and driven by human capital, the dynamic you are describing seems like something that would normally come into play at a late stage of its life. Ignoring other factors, imagine how easy it would be to compete against a company that is entirely run this way and staffed by people who work like this. Literally no one there would even care that they're facing disruption.
The benifits I see:
1. No commute. (Getting cars off the road is good for global warming?) And my sanity when I do need to go somewhere.
2. More sleep.
3. Less busy work to keep some middle manager happy.
4. Happier employee.
5. I have no clue over productivity.
negatives:
1. I guess schmoozing is important for some people. I did make most of my younger self's friends at work because we were both at the same lousy job?
2. Some people find office banter comradery important for their mental health? I used to be one of those people, but would happily give up a little socialization for more sleep, and less hrs driving.
If the government spent some tax money on a campaign to keep workers home, if the job was doable at home, I would be behind it.
I wouldn't even mind if they gave credits to employers who didn't drag their employees into a office.
Frame the promotion over Global Warming, and not employee satisfaction. We all know employees are way down on the list of what they care about, but a tax credit, and some kind of carbon rebate whatnot might keep many of us home? And less cars on the road. In my county, it seemed like everyone went out and bought a second car. Traffic is back to unbearable in the Bay Area.