Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with you. When it comes to feeling ripped off, I (lovingly) tease my Boomer relatives that I envy them and their pensions. That's something that was phased out when I started working. I am okay with doing my 401k and Roth IRA and such, but if I was being honest, I would have loved a reliable pension instead of the 401k.
that had nothing to do with the boomers... more like genX, and GenY ... it had to do with the Urban liberals of the late 80's, through the 90's, into the early 00's, being YUPPIES, (young urban professional" or "young upwardly-mobile professional",). who didn't want to be stuck at one place for 20-30 years, and wanted a "mobile-pension", hence the 401k and IRA
So the article says 'people' don't want go back to the office. Are Gen. Z the only peoplein an office.
And what about the millenials -- do they want to work from home.
My boomer husband works more from home than before COVID. Folks found out you can be as productive asbeing in the office.
And for every horror story of an employee shirking job responsibilities working from home, there are the same of people 'showing' up at an office.
So treat them the same as if they were in the office and not producing.
It doesn't work for all jobs or people, but it does work for lots of people.
(My children and their partners work TOO Much from home...they don't shut it off..which they would do better if they had to go into the office).
When I did work from home, I did the exact same thing. I worked 70-80 hours a week, something I would never volunteer to do if I had to go into an office. It's so much easier to work more when you're able to do it from home. It's the same work, but it doesn't feel as exhausting like it does in the office.
Maybe these people need to learn how to manage their 'team members' who aren't doing their job. As we found out, a whole lot of Twitter employees weren't doing jack all. It's still running without them.
I've said this for years, and it still applies to this day, in the office or from home: You could get rid of 80% of your workforce in most office jobs, keep the ones who actually do not only the work, but a very thorough job of it, not the bare minimum. Keep 20% of your best people, get rid of the rest, and no one would notice the difference.
Musk has proven that it's possible.
We've had shortages in work in many areas, but what I've noticed in restaurants and stores is that a lot of them don't care to do anything beyond the bare basics. So - find better people, pay them better, get rid of the rest.
that had nothing to do with the boomers... more like genX, and GenY ... it had to do with the Urban liberals of the late 80's, through the 90's, into the early 00's, being YUPPIES, (young urban professional" or "young upwardly-mobile professional",). who didn't want to be stuck at one place for 20-30 years, and wanted a "mobile-pension", hence the 401k and IRA
I am going to have to go all "conspiracy theory" with you on that one.
I don't believe for a second employees wanted to end guaranteed retirement pensions, any more than people wanted many of America's best jobs farmed out to China or filled by illegal immigrants.
My belief is that corporate america conspired with Wall Street and the US government.
The 401k was put into the tax code in 1978, way beore urban liberals hit the work force. It is not like people voted for it. Congress passed that law and did it without any knowlege or approval from workers.
IMHO, businesses wanted to end pensions. Wall Street wanted a guaranteed revenue stream. This was a ploy to take businesses off the hook for pensions, and get workers to flood Wall Street with money that would be locked up in their equities until those workers retired and started to draw from their accounts.
Nobody wanted 401ks. They made people mobile, not the other way around. I remain convinced that most people would have preferred to have stable lifetime employment, raises, and security at one employer, with a guaranteed retirement pension. It is the ruthless companies that wanted to jetison pension costs, and be able to fire older workers and replace them with cheaper younger workers.
It's even worse in the blue collar trades. Apprentices have been quitting at a pace never before seen. America's young people have either found ways to make a lot more money, or they stopped caring about money or maybe they even hate it. Maybe they watched the rest of us throw our country down the drain for the almighty dollar and realized how stupid that really is.
Oh, no; trust me, they don't "hate money." They just don't have to work for it.
I am going to have to go all "conspiracy theory" with you on that one.
I don't believe for a second employees wanted to end guaranteed retirement pensions, any more than people wanted many of America's best jobs farmed out to China or filled by illegal immigrants.
My belief is that corporate america conspired with Wall Street and the US government.
The 401k was put into the tax code in 1978, way beore urban liberals hit the work force. It is not like people voted for it. Congress passed that law and did it without any knowlege or approval from workers.
IMHO, businesses wanted to end pensions. Wall Street wanted a guaranteed revenue stream. This was a ploy to take businesses off the hook for pensions, and get workers to flood Wall Street with money that would be locked up in their equities until those workers retired and started to draw from their accounts.
Nobody wanted 401ks. They made people mobile, not the other way around. I remain convinced that most people would have preferred to have stable lifetime employment, raises, and security at one employer, with a guaranteed retirement pension. It is the ruthless companies that wanted to jetison pension costs, and be able to fire older workers and replace them with cheaper younger workers.
My company ditched pensions ten years ago along with other perks.
I'm not entirely sure about that, or maybe I'm just lucky. I manage a team of 10 people and 3 of them are in their 20s, almost 30. This is probably their 2nd job out of college. I am super impressed with them, there productivity, and their eagerness to learn. I was really worried when I hired them, but they are gems, really. Love having them.
Now, they do benefit from coming in the office (we are 3 times a week, some weeks 2 times). They still need that in-person presence. The dynamic in training them really changes in person; hard to describe. But they are willing to do it and don't complain at all.
I'm probably just really lucky.
I'm a boomer who works with 20-somethings and most of them are great. Smart, professional, and hardworking. Some are more productive than others, but they all have a good work ethic.
some of you I cant rep again, you make some good points.
Any normal person would agree, an ICU nurse has to be there in person with their hands on a bleeding patient, a forklift doesnt drive itself (yet), and installing telephone poles and plumbling lines has to be done IRL. But for those that mainly work in 'paperwork' industries like banking finance real estate insurance, why not WFH? If email/phone is not enough, you can get a Zoom/Teams session. I dont need to sit across a desk from my car insurance agent, to renew my policy. That belongs to 1992, like a FAX machine belongs to 1982.
Igor Blevin, good posts but this thread is supposed to be about work-in-the-office vs work-from-home, but you keep waxing poetic about national and worldwide labor markets/talent pools and the glory of capitalism. Work in the office means the employer can only hire people in a '50 mile/1 hour commute' radius of a building they own. Plenty of companies have closed or vacated their leased office bldgs since the Pandemic.
The world is changing (and some people dont like change)
My particular employer, they have fully embraced WFH for the roles where that makes sense. Record productivity and profits (cough cough) is the word from the CEO.
if hybrid 2x week is the right answer, and people want to choose that I say let 'em have it.
if 100% WFH is the right answer, and people want to choose that I say let 'em have it.
if some percentage of people want 100% on-site then that should be an option for them. You vie for that 'corner office' and 'front row parking spot', I literally dont care now about such things. Same analogy for ergonomic chairs and noise-free workspaces. I have utter tranquility now, and I love it.
Trite points but I want to say:
1. when you work in the office, there is a micromanagement Regime of Terror. Somebody decides "this is the equipment you deserve" and you can't get better. I once asked for a 19" LCD monitor, and the gatekeeper laughed in my face and sent me away like an arrogant child asking for a Unicorn pony for my birthday party, and I ought to be grateful for the cold hot dog everybody gets for their birthday party. 19" was only for C-level execs. You cube-farm-slaves get 15" monitors.
Meanwhile, now that I WFH, I picked up at my own expense two 27" 2k monitors, so now I have a 5120x1440 (5k) display. There is now (almost) no spreadsheet that is too large. My productivity has soared. I would have NEVER been approved for such equipment if I worked onsite, because the crabs-in-a-bucket mentality of all the other cubical farm slaves & micromanager (haters) would have immediately caused a fuss.
- I pay for my own A/C + Heat
- I pay for my own electricity + internet
- I pay for beverages + lunches (they dont have to build and staff a cafeteria that serves (up to) 10,000 on-campus employees)
- I dont have to buy fancier/dry-cleaned clothes. I dont get speeding tickets or have to waste my life in traffic or pay to park downtown.
- I imagine there is a 99.999% reduction in sexual harassment claims when employees aren't even in the same hallways + coffee breakrooms to harass each other
- same for workplace accidents and falls.
My employer has stated they love WFH, unlike Elon Muskrat. It may not last 10 years, but whatevs.
The true standard is Productivity and Profitability, not whether or not somebody can 'watch you work' from their 2nd-grade-teacher Desk.
good. If the job can be done at home there is no need to make employees commute all the way to the office
Yeah. "Employees need to be monitored" [sent during the work hours].
I can tell you one thing - real business owners aren't posting on C-D during the workday complaining about slackers.
A majority of my company is 100% remote. We are a global company, saving millions per year in office rent. For the employees, like me, we're saving thousands on gas, clothing, lunches, etc.
Hey it doesn't work for everyone, and that's cool. The people who do like WFH will find a WFH job. It's what makes the open market great. Don't get me wrong, I would go to work in the office, but you're going to compensate me accordingly.
I agree with you. When it comes to feeling ripped off, I (lovingly) tease my Boomer relatives that I envy them and their pensions. That's something that was phased out when I started working. I am okay with doing my 401k and Roth IRA and such, but if I was being honest, I would have loved a reliable pension instead of the 401k.
Exactly. I'd give up $10 an hour for a pension, 401k, profit sharing, vacation/sick pay ,and healthcare. Maybe even more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
