deilann v -0.2.1.  Aug 13, 2023

stop making the conversation about work-at-home about productivity

eliminating non-essential worker commutes means less fossil fuels wasted

remote policies increase access for disabled people, especially with chronic illness that flares

LGBT folks and PoC experience less bigotry and it's easier to report bigotry when they do

do some people want hybrid? do some people want on-site? sure

but stop pretending the discussion was about productivity or what employees want

it's about real estate portfolios

Show threadOblomovAug 14, 2023
@deilann fully agreed, but tell that to the discourse manipulators in the media 8-D
Where the productivity angle becomes interesting is in the “kaiju fight” sense: there's an ongoing battle between the real estate rent seeing lobby and the “maximize profits by cutting expenses” class, and often local governments are on the rent seeker side because taxes. We need to force the balance on the other side to achieve what is best for the workers. The productivity angle helps there.
1/
Show threadOblomovAug 14, 2023

@deilann even better it would be to manage to impose on the bosses all the costs of commuting, but we need a better organized workforce for that. 8-/

2/2

Show threaddeilann v -0.2.1.  Aug 14, 2023
@oblomov sorry you were forced to read something you felt I should have somehow forced upon media giants I have no control over without others seeing it. i'll make sure to not point these things out where I see people buying and perpetuating these narratives in the future, as if my microblog isn't fully productive and entirely centered around directly addressing power it is, in fact, useless.
Show threadOblomovAug 14, 2023
@deilann sorry, I didn't mean it like that. I actually enjoy finding like-minded people (although I do wish there was way to reach out to more people out there that do need it to hear it more). (Also please do let me know if you would rather prefer I edit the comment to remove the media jab, or remove the comment altogether.)
Show threaddeilann v -0.2.1.  Aug 14, 2023

@oblomov the comment was already done - it is what it is

framing the discussion around productivity doesn't help workers in the long run as it perpetuates the narrative that we need to exploit every potential cent of a worker's labor out of them with no concern for the worker. it also is fragile as we can see with repeated narratives of studies that "prove" WAH actually is less productive "killing" remote work

making companies pay for non-essential commutes is impossible, considering the impact on climate change, urban sprawl, pollution, and risk can't truly be balanced out with payment

it also ignores the people who benefit in other ways than the reduction in commute time. if you let a corporation pay for something rather than actually change, they will. it'll just essentially become a fine.

Show threadOblomovAug 14, 2023
@deilann save for a drastic change in the socioeconomic model (which I sadly don't see happening any time soon, although minds *are* starting to change), framing and costs remain the “second best” course of action, I think. Yes, they can be circumvented, but any political power that has the intent and strength to enact these changes will also have the strength to enforce them and minimize circumvention. The resurgence of unionization gives me hope that things may move in the right direction.
1/
Show threadOblomov
@deilann FWIW re: the framing, I'm not saying it's what we should be doing (in fact, I really appreciated your synthetic yet in-depth first post precisely because it went against it), hence why I mentioned the “kaiju fight”: it's something that still comes from a position of power, but it's one that goes against the rent-seekers, and as long as it moves things towards WFH, I think it's better to expand on it rather than oppose it.
Aug 14, 2023 at 9:57amWeb
Show threaddeilann v -0.2.1.  Aug 14, 2023

@oblomov

ah, so people like me are just supposed to wait on access to work while things "move towards" renewing our access

Show threadOblomovAug 14, 2023
@deilann hm no? how did you get that from what I wrote, sorry?
Show threaddeilann v -0.2.1.  Aug 14, 2023

@oblomov i'm legally blind

i can't commute

forcing companies to compensate for commutes means I will be excluded from the workforce again, as companies will just accept that as a "fine" a cost of doing business

Show threadOblomovAug 14, 2023

@deilann would that be the case?
What we have now is:
1. companies have the power to dictate where workers work, and workers have to pay for the commute out of their own time and money;
The “cost” scenario is:
2. companies have the power to dictate where workers work, but have to factor in the cost of paying (time and money) for the workers' commute
The third scenario is something along the lines:
3. workers decide where to work, and cannot be discriminated for that.

(This is long, continue.) >

Show threadOblomovAug 14, 2023
@deilann
<(continues)
What you are arguing for is that 3 is better than 2 (which I agree with), what I'm arguing for is that 2 is better than 1. Opposing 2 because it's not 3 it's “the perfect being the enemy of the good”. There's more: even in 3. you still want companies to pay the cost of workers commuting, because it's the ethical thing to do, *especially* considering that there is work that *must* be done on-premise (e.g. construction, maintenance, medical, and nearly everything on-call). >
Show threadOblomovAug 14, 2023

@deilann
< IOW, “companies have to pay the cost of commuting” is a must-have regardless of whether who decides where the work is done is the employer or the employee. And in this regard, 2. is actually a stepping stone towards 3.

Moreover, I believe you're underestimating the cost-saving approaches of most companies. Outside of a few major enterprises, a lot of smaller ones would actually go under if they had to start paying workers more fairly (which includes bear the cost of their commute).

Show threaddeilann v -0.2.1.  Aug 14, 2023

@oblomov I don't oppose 2 because it's imperfect

I oppose it because it actively excludes me and others from access to the workforce that I was granted for about 2 years and is now being ripped away

not everyone has the luxury of a commute that can be paid for and historically, if you offer 2 it'll be treated as a pat on the back look we compromised end of discussion solution

and as for "oh you could just work for small companies who can't eat the cost of the commute" that's saying "if you're disabled you'll at least have access to small companies who can't afford to pay you properly"

you're being really dismissive of the reality many disabled folks are facing where we were finally allowed the ability to make a living for ourselves and now we're being told to go back to poverty because your plan means maybe in 10 or 20 years I can be allowed back again

Show threadOblomovAug 14, 2023
@deilann I'm not being dismissive, I'm saying that paying for the commute is something that should be done *regardless* of whether we're talking about 2. or 3., and that even with 2. it will be an incentive for many companies to let people WFH rather than forcing them to come to the office, which is a step up for *all* workers, including both those that cannot commute *and* those that must.
Show threadPassengerAug 14, 2023

@oblomov @deilann

Ob, I love you like my own enby, but I feel you're not listening.

What we saw for many years before covid was that companies would refuse to hire competent people who need to work entirely remotely, and would instead hire less competent people who can commute. You can phrase this as "managers are usually bad at their jobs", which is true, or you can phrase it as "managers' desire to make money is usually lower in their priority list than their bigotries and their desire for control over their employees", which is also true.

The old argument of "why would businesses do X when they can make more money doing Y" runs aground against the repeated observation that most businesses keep doing X anyway. In the real world, managers are not perfect enlightened profit-maximisers.

On the other hand, during covid we saw that if businesses were given an absolute enforced rule of "you must let all office workers work from home, the end, no quibbles", they generally did obey that, and it created space for people who were unable to commute.

On a personal note, the company I worked for at the time absolutely tripped over its own clownshoes by insisting that everyone go back to the office. They lost most of their best staff by doing that, especially in critical tech teams, which then created bottlenecks that pushed everything else back at a huge cost. This was completely foreseeable, they were warned. Some things were more important to them than profit making.

Delian is saying that a system of incentives, like you are proposing, has been shown not to work, but a system of absolute rules has been shown to work. As such, if we want to create space for people who are unable to commute, the correct approach is obvious.

I believe in empirical evidence. I think you do too. I think you should listen.

Show threadOblomovAug 14, 2023

@passenger
the fundamental misunderstanding here is that I'm not advocating 2. (the “system of incentive”) as an *alternative* to 3. (worker choice), but as a path towards, and one that can and *will* bring benefits to all workers.

I don't see how anyone can claim that the system of incentives “has been shown not to work” given that nowhere that I know of employers are forced to bear the cost of their workers' commutes —or am I missing something?

@deilann

Show threadPassengerAug 14, 2023

@oblomov @deilann

You're missing that 2 does not lead to 3, because people in power hate disabled people and workers more than they love money.

Show threadPassengerAug 14, 2023

@oblomov @deilann

Like, you're just assuming that people are rational and bigotry does not exist, and you're making that assumption in a situation which is directly relevant to a form of bigotry.

Consider how this would look with any other form of bigotry, and then consider how your argument might make you look.

Show threadOblomovAug 14, 2023

@passenger
I'm not assuming anything. But I repeat: have the employers been forced to bear the cost of the employees' commutes in any circumstances, that I'm unaware of?

And second question: given that there are work activities that have to be done on-premise, who should bear the cost of the worker commute in such cases, the employee or the employer?

@deilann

Show threadLooking for explanations…Aug 15, 2023
@oblomov @passenger @deilann It’s not just about the cost of the commute. It’s the fact that some people aren’t physically capable of making the commute, but are capable of WFH. really interesting discussion on profit motives vs other reasons for back to the office. #WFH #Disabilty
Show threadOblomovAug 15, 2023

@Susan60 (discussion so interesting that one of the interlocutors blocked me and the other isn't replying anymore)

The thing is, the two aspects are orthogonal. Whether or not one can commute (which depends on both the kind of job and the person) doesn't (or if you will, shouldn't) bear on the fact that the cost of commuting should be paid by the employer, not the employee. And cost of commuting isn't just e.g. gas or public transportation, it's also things like time.

@passenger @deilann

Show threadLooking for explanations…Aug 15, 2023
@oblomov @passenger @deilann It seems to me that while the other writer started with a global approach to the WFH issue, it turned out that their passion for it is driven by the very personal (& crucial) issue of their access to paid work as a person with a disability. Access to paid work can mean financial security, improved living standards & better health outcomes, physical & mental.
Show threadOblomovAug 15, 2023

@Susan60 how does that lead to opposing the idea of having the employers pay for the employees commute is still unclear to me though.

@passenger @deilann

Show threadLooking for explanations…Aug 15, 2023
@oblomov @passenger @deilann By this stage, the fact that you haven’t engaged with the issue of disabled access to paid work & keep talking about commute costs is probably being felt like a slap in the face. You’re using big picture logic. They’re talking about life & death for them & others like them.
Show threadLooking for explanations…Aug 15, 2023
@oblomov @passenger @deilann I sometimes fail to pick up on the personal angst of others, because I am focussed on the logic of the discussion. It’s one of the reasons I think I’m on the autism spectrum. I do have empathy, lots of it, but sometimes fail to see when it is required.
Show threadOblomovAug 15, 2023

@Susan60

When personal angst prevents someone from actually seeing an opportunity that would help improve their situation simply because it's not the specific solution they're thinking of, the problem isn't whether or not the others lack empathy.

@passenger @deilann

Show threadLooking for explanations…Aug 15, 2023
@oblomov @passenger @deilann I’ve really enjoyed this discussion, because I’m on a personal journey re my own neurodiversity, & I see a lot of myself in you, not least the stubborn refusal to acknowledge the emotional pain of others. That pain needs to be acknowledged & respected before people can move on to problem solving. Insisting that people put their pain to one side to focus on logic is hurtful & alienating. You might or might be able to relate to this, but you need to respect it. Signing off now. I’m exhausted!
Show threadOblomovAug 15, 2023

@Susan60 @passenger @deilann

If shifting commute costs to the employer incentives WFH (which is my claim) it also helps disabled access to paid work. But this claim is rejected for no reason.

Show threadLooking for explanations…Aug 15, 2023
@oblomov @passenger @deilann At this point I’m starting to laugh at myself. (Sorry @deilann I know this isn’t funny for you.) I sometimes get fixated on the “facts” or logic of an argument, totally failing to recognise the feelings at play, even my own. No amount of logic is going to win here. (Plus you’re ignoring the fact that employers would choose not to hire disabled people due to often higher costs of transport. And some disabled people simply can’t work anywhere other than home, due to special needs.)
Show threadOblomovAug 15, 2023

@Susan60 @passenger @deilann

Employers that don't want to hire disabled people are going to find any possible excuse for not hiring them. What's the point here?

Show threadLooking for explanations…Aug 15, 2023
@oblomov @passenger @deilann I have done this myself, spoken about a global issue, but driven by the very personal effects it has had on me. When other people don’t pick up on the personal aspect, it feels to me like they don’t care about me & others like me. I could possibly avoid this by being clear from the outset the the issue has very personal implications for me, but that would expose vulnerability.
Show threadOblomovAug 15, 2023
@Susan60 @passenger @deilann this doesn't really explain it though, especially since in this case at least the claim that shifting the cost of commute to the employer won't incentivize WFH is dubious at best.
Show threadLooking for explanations…Aug 15, 2023
@oblomov @passenger @deilann The topic of the conversation is no longer logistics. It’s pain, physical & mental. It’s isolation & financial insecurity.