|
|
|
|
|
by revlolz
993 days ago
|
|
I did not infer any contempt from the author towards everyday people who are forced to capitulate. The author empathized with the hardest hit victims in this target: h1b workers. Those who cannot simply 'play chicken' without risking deportation. There was no contempt or hate in these words or I feel like the sentiment would have been 'they are getting what they deserve... ' I agree completely with this author about the dehumanizing nature of these rto mandates. They completely forbid and outlaw natural human development/growth without risk to your career. Did anything in your life change? Well, I guess you need to start looking for a new career even though you've demonstrated over x years that you can accomplish your work remote. It's so obvious the majority of these mandates are for dehumanizing purposes to force people to quit, gain tax incentives, impress power upon subordinates, or benefit commercial real estate holders. Hate and contempt towards the selfish leaders here is totally warranted. Disdain towards fickle middle managers lacking backbone would also be understandable in my opinion. |
|
There it is again. As if it isn't possible for people to just, you know, decide that it is fine and move on with their lives? Are they really "forced to capitulate"?
I recall working in an office building for a small software company. Due to the growth, the company had people working in hallways. Soon after I joined the company moved offices so they could have more space. The new building was on the other side of town. That would increase the commute for a lot of workers, like adding one hour plus to their lives. Some opted to leave the company.
Was everyone else "forced to capitulate"?
> I agree completely with this author about the dehumanizing nature of these rto mandates.
You don't agree with the quote I pulled. The author isn't calling the "nature of these rto mandates" dehumanizing. He is explicitly saying that the people who submit to this are dehumanizing themselves.