Current Events > Forcing employees back to the office doesn't make sense for for-profit companies

(+) Yeah! (+)

Its seriously prioritizing control over employees to making money. Spending less or no money on office building leases would be a big money saver.

Control is a hell of a drug

It's a deeper darker link than that. The companies are in bed with the building owners and they get benefits and breaks from having physical offices. Don't qualify if workers are there in the space for at least a portion of the time.

Nasty business.

Tell that to the useless CEOs running these businesses.

Shishiwakamaru posted...

Its seriously prioritizing control over employees to making money.

Correct.

But if employees aren't in the office, someone might notice that my middle management position is completely superfluous!

The rich and their lackies love money first and control second. Got to keep everyone else down.

It does if wealth is locked into real estate in which case many business are involved in via the stock market at very least.

These companies are also leaving the door wide open for new companies that dont spend as much money on physical office space to overtake them. The best employees would presumably want to work for those companies too, because they can work from home or wherever they want to.

These executives forget than much bigger and more successful companies have declined and gone out of business in the past, refusing to adapt will not do them any favors.

I want to preface this that if you work a job that CAN be done remote, and you've proven your production does not drop when working remote, you should 100% have the option to work remote.

But...

For the business itself, it's a lot more nuanced that that Starting with companies that actually own the office buildings that are currently being unused or are in rental/lease agreements that they cannot get out of.

Those are costs that are literally going towards nothing.

bigblu89 posted...

I want to preface this that if you work a job that CAN be done remote, and you've proven your production does not drop when working remote, you should 100% have the option to work remote.

But...

For the business itself, it's a lot more nuanced that that Starting with companies that actually own the office buildings that are currently being unused or are in rental/lease agreements that they cannot get out of.

Those are costs that are literally going towards nothing.

Those costs are the same whether people are there or not, so this argument doesn't hold much water.

Studies have shown that forcing people from remote work to in office work decreases their productivity, so, in effect, they'd be costing themselves even more money just to "feel" better about money they're already spending, regardless.

And that's assuming they're not paying for electric, heating, water, waste, or whatever else, because those are costs being saved by remote work.

EDIT: Beyond that, if you find your work can be done better, or atleast the same, remote, then why would you force yourself back into a situation where you need to renew the rental/lease agreement, instead of seeing it as something you could save money on in the future?

Some of the super rich make their money in business real estate. If you dont force people back to the office that real estate goes unused. Do you really want a rich persons investments to fail? DO YOU?! Didnt think so.

They are forcing employees back to the office to get people to quit instead of laying them off.

StealThisSheen posted...

Those costs are the same whether people are there or not, so this argument doesn't hold much water.

Studies have shown that forcing people from remote work to in office work decreases their productivity, so, in effect, they'd be costing themselves even more money just to "feel" better about money they're already spending, regardless.

And that's assuming they're not paying for electric, heating, water, waste, or whatever else, because those are costs being saved by remote work.

EDIT: Beyond that, if you find your work can be done better, or atleast the same, remote, then why would you force yourself back into a situation where you need to renew the rental/lease agreement, instead of seeing it as something you could save money on in the future?

I didn't say it wasn't flawed logic, I just said that's the logic behind it.

Given the option, I don't know why a company WOULDN'T want their workers to be remote, and get out from under owning/leasing/renting office space.

Unless it's some sort of tax situation, where the ownership of the property gives them some sort of financial advantages.

bigblu89 posted...

I didn't say it wasn't flawed logic, I just said that's the logic behind it.

Given the option, I don't know why a company WOULDN'T want their workers to be remote, and get out from under owning/leasing/renting office space.

Unless it's some sort of tax situation, where the ownership of the property gives them some sort of financial advantages.

Oh, right, fair enough. I wasn't arguing against you, specifically, just the argument presented.

RetsuZaiZen posted...

It's a deeper darker link than that. The companies are in bed with the building owners and they get benefits and breaks from having physical offices. Don't qualify if workers are there in the space for at least a portion of the time.

Nasty business.

How would benefits and deals from building owners be cheaper than not owning a building?

GeraldDarko posted...

How would benefits and deals from building owners be cheaper than not owning a building?

It can be advantageous, but only in very unique circumstances.

For example, the company I used to work for turned half of their business into running training classes. By promising to have an office in the area, they'd get local governments to agree to basically fund several classes/cohorts, which ended up being a net gain, since they could just sign a lease for the amount of time they expected to run the cohorts.

That's obviously a very rare kind of occurrence, thus the answer isn't actually money, just control.

punishing some in order to crackwhip others is the name of the game

companies don't want overachievers, they want people doing their job at about 105%. Enough that the company gets value, but not enough such that the employee is actively sought out by recruiters.