[toomuchtodo]

I'm unsure what the disgruntlement is with these efforts. Job requirements can be modified to accommodate the desires and needs of a labor force. That is what regulation, laws, and unions are for.

Jobs that must be done in person will still be done in person, jobs that can be done remotely may be empowered to be done remotely. Employment is a negotiation, not edict from nobility. Maybe you have to prove the job can't be done remotely as an employer. That is a reasonable requirement.

[s1artibartfast]

I guess the first disgruntlement is with the the idea of that being the purpose of regulation, law, and unions.

Unions makes total sense, but not regulation or law.

If a company wants to pay a worker to stand idle in a building to drive up realestate value, that should not be a question of law or regulation.

>Jobs that must be done in person will still be done in person, jobs that can be done remotely may be empowered to be done remotely.

This is already reverting to the assumtion that the "job" is something different than what the employer dictates. Part of the job can be to meet in person.

Having to prove the job cant be done remotely is already redifinging "the job" as something other than what the employer wants. Who exactly is running the company here?

[toomuchtodo]

I suppose we'll agree to disagree on the role of government and labor unions. Good chat regardless, I always appreciate the perspective of others.

[s1artibartfast]

Well I think we agreed on that role of labor unions, just not the government.

I do however understand that some people think the role of the government is to just be a big labor union