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 threadOblomovAug 14, 2023
@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.
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.  

@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

Aug 14, 2023 at 10:49amWeb
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.