This week, a reminder email was sent to employees who didn't work on-site at least three times a week.
Amazon warns workers to come back into the office::This week, a reminder email was sent to employees who didn’t work on-site at least three times a week.
I know people who work in IT at places they have installed surveillance on wfh machines and the stats show that people really aren’t working as hard from home.
I’ve been wfh with optional in-office work for over a decade and I know it can be done well. But I know there are a lot of people that you have to stay on top of who would be fine in an office.
So I don’t think these companies are going back into the office for no reason.
That said, I think this will backfire because the best employees will find work at places where they can work remote unless compensated far better than they can get at remote shops.
I think there’s some critical information they’re missing. They need to establish a control group by using that same surveillance software for in office employees. And it’s pretty easy to tell when people are inattentive from home, but not as much when they’re in the office. You still need to find a way quantify that data though. Otherwise it really isn’t a fair comparison.
the stats show that people really aren’t working as hard from home.
Are they still getting done what needs to be done in an appropriate amount of time? Because that should be the only metric that matters for WFH employees as far as I can tell. “You aren’t working hard enough” is “Protestant Work Ethic” capitalist bullshit.
Determining what people should be able to get done is not simple and will always be imprecise. In a lot of professional jobs, you aren’t paid to get x done. You’re paid to get as much s as you reasonably can during working hours and that’s nearly impossible to determine when everyone is remote.
So when everyone who works for you works remote, there are some tough situations that come up. The biggest one is if someone isn’t getting many tasks completed over a free weeks. Is it because they aren’t working or because a lot of roadblocks really did come up or is it because they aren’t really working? It’s easier to give that person the benefit of the doubt if they’ve been at the office and you can see them working.
I’ve worked remote for over a decade so I know it’s possible for a team to get work done, but it would definitely be easier and more effective to manage people in office. And some people who have fallen behind may have been given more leniency in office than they get while wfh. So I get why some businesses don’t want to deal with that. I think they’ll lose out on the best workers unless they’re willing to pay significantly more for them to work in office though. But we’ll see how it goes.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
English
I know people who work in IT at places they have installed surveillance on wfh machines and the stats show that people really aren’t working as hard from home.
I’ve been wfh with optional in-office work for over a decade and I know it can be done well. But I know there are a lot of people that you have to stay on top of who would be fine in an office.
So I don’t think these companies are going back into the office for no reason.
That said, I think this will backfire because the best employees will find work at places where they can work remote unless compensated far better than they can get at remote shops.
It’s a good thing it’s impossible to goof off at the office!
No one said it wasn’t. I said they have evidence that people don’t work as much when they work from home.
Care to show that evidence?
I think there’s some critical information they’re missing. They need to establish a control group by using that same surveillance software for in office employees. And it’s pretty easy to tell when people are inattentive from home, but not as much when they’re in the office. You still need to find a way quantify that data though. Otherwise it really isn’t a fair comparison.
They did use it during wfh and after work from home. So it didn’t inform their decisions to call people back, but it did validate it.
Are they still getting done what needs to be done in an appropriate amount of time? Because that should be the only metric that matters for WFH employees as far as I can tell. “You aren’t working hard enough” is “Protestant Work Ethic” capitalist bullshit.
Determining what people should be able to get done is not simple and will always be imprecise. In a lot of professional jobs, you aren’t paid to get x done. You’re paid to get as much s as you reasonably can during working hours and that’s nearly impossible to determine when everyone is remote.
So when everyone who works for you works remote, there are some tough situations that come up. The biggest one is if someone isn’t getting many tasks completed over a free weeks. Is it because they aren’t working or because a lot of roadblocks really did come up or is it because they aren’t really working? It’s easier to give that person the benefit of the doubt if they’ve been at the office and you can see them working.
I’ve worked remote for over a decade so I know it’s possible for a team to get work done, but it would definitely be easier and more effective to manage people in office. And some people who have fallen behind may have been given more leniency in office than they get while wfh. So I get why some businesses don’t want to deal with that. I think they’ll lose out on the best workers unless they’re willing to pay significantly more for them to work in office though. But we’ll see how it goes.