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 threadFrances LarinaAug 15, 2023

@deilann

If it was about productivity, shouldn't the same management tools be used?

But they're not, are they? We're not seeing managers, directors, etc. disciplining, writing up or firing people for low productivity.

Many businesses are reporting increased productivity.

So the whole idea of it being about productivity is just a smokescreen, as you said.

What I don't get is if everyone works from home, the corporation has to pay for their fancy new campus either way. But operating costs are lower if nobody is there.

So perhaps it's just about ego and face-saving for the top decision makers?

Show threaddeilann v -0.2.1.  

@Frances_Larina the trouble isn't operating costs

it's property values

Aug 15, 2023 at 1:00amWeb
Show threadFrances LarinaAug 15, 2023

@deilann

How do they change depending on whether workers are in the buildings or not, please?

Show threaddeilann v -0.2.1.  Aug 15, 2023

@Frances_Larina if your campus/office building is empty or has fewer workers, it's less "attractive" so the property values of the entire area drop including nearby properties and storefronts.

you have to remember that the ultra-wealthy buy properties as an investment, not to use them, so any action that lowers their value is a threat to their wealth

Show threadFrances LarinaAug 15, 2023

@deilann

I understand now, thank you for taking the time to explain it!