It’s also nice eating out of your own fridge, using your own toilet, and everything else.
from a “managing people” standpoint it’s a little easier (at least in my field) too, because it becomes obvious when someone’s product is shit if I’m paying attention
also i really like shitting at home
how will landlords who own all the buildings in business districts get paid, then? do you want their properties to stay empty? do you just want them to starve?
We’ve had this capacity for several decades now, and it seems ridiculous that our culture has not fully embraced it with open arms. If that’s not a sign that “we the people” aren’t running the show, I don’t know what is. Freedom my ass.
Of course it does!
When I get a complaint email I can yell at Myles to go fuck himself with a toilet brush, all whole sitting in my favourite chair and Myles will still wish me a good evening at the end of the work day.
What’s not to like?This popped into my head…
Even better is if we all got a monthly allowance and not have to work full time. 😆
That’s why they want to put a stop to it. You’re not allowed to be happy.
A hard truth is that if you see an executive pushing return to office, you know one of two things about them. One of the following is true.
-
They are terrible at finance and don’t understand the sunk-cost fallacy. They have to keep using that building they bought; they’ve spent so much on it and simply can’t bring themselves to sell it.
-
They’re a sexual molester. They’re someone that uses the power of their position to coerce sex out of their employees. Fucking their employees is their primary motivation for not retiring early right now. You can’t coerce your secretary to give you a blowjob over Zoom.
That’s really it. They’re either bad at business or they’re a sexual predator. If you see an executive pushing return to office, be sure to ask them which one of these they are. Because they’re definitely one or the other.
- Tradition.
- Belief that work-from-home is less efficient.
So
- They’re morons and terrible at business.
- Remote didn’t work as well for the company.
- Remote didn’t work as well for any number of people at that company.
Found the executive.
Honestly I think your first point is just a subset of something larger and even more basic - “we’ve always done it this way. Change is scawwy. Different bad. Are you implying I was wrong before?” Etc.
-
Truth. I am so happy where I’m at that I am not looking for a new job with better pay because I love WFH so much. I know here I will always WFH.
Don’t need to put on makeup, don’t need to put together outfits for the week, don’t need to drive anywhere. I wake up thirty minutes before I clock in.
Love it!
Here’s the weird thing.
I’ve been telecommuting for 23 years. I’ve never been able to just roll outta bed and put in a full day. If it’s scheduled then I’m showered and dressed and ready to go; just in shorts and a tee vs khakis and a fucking polo.
The only indulgence is on a o5oo wakeup I’m not shaving lest I lose an eyebrow or an ear. Even in our basic training it was o520.
But yeah, no smelly sweatpants for me.
Same here. I get ready to work in the same way as I would step into my car to go to the office.
Makes perfect sense. I get dressed, shave, and head right into the office and then head straight back home every day I’m working from home. It’s about good habits, you know?
I propose that the mods should take this post down, or at least point to the original post, that cmu.fr has obviously plagiarized.
Here is what seems to be the original post: https://indiandefencereview.com/theyve-observed-teleworking-for-four-years-and-reached-one-clear-conclusion-working-from-home-makes-us-happier/
The big difference is that the original article actually points to the study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35379616/ where as the cmu.fr plagiarized version makes no reference whatsoever to the study. Just vague slop about “scientists”.
That said, I think that even the original article miscaracterizes the paper. Here is the paper abstract:
Objectives: To investigate the impacts, on mental and physical health, of a mandatory shift to working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Design: Cross sectional, online survey.
Setting: Online survey was conducted from September 2020 to November 2020 in the general population.
Participants: Australian residents working from home for at least 2 days a week at some time in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Main outcome measures: Demographics, caring responsibilities, working from home arrangements, work-related technology, work-family interface, psychosocial and physical working conditions, and reported stress and musculoskeletal pain.
Results: 924 Australians responded to the online questionnaire. Respondents were mostly women (75.5%) based in Victoria (83.7%) and employed in the education and training and healthcare sectors. Approximately 70% of respondents worked five or more days from home, with only 60% having a dedicated workstation in an uninterrupted space. Over 70% of all respondents reported experiencing musculoskeletal pain or discomfort. Gendered differences were observed; men reported higher levels of family to work conflict (3.16±1.52 to 2.94±1.59, p=0.031), and lower levels of recognition for their work (3.75±1.03 to 3.96±1.06, p=0.004), compared with women. For women, stress (2.94±0.92 to 2.66±0.88, p<0.001) and neck/shoulder pain (4.50±2.90 to 3.51±2.84, p<0.001) were higher than men and they also reported more concerns about their job security than men (3.01±1.33 to 2.78±1.40, p=0.043).
Conclusions: Preliminary evidence from the current study suggests that working from home may impact employees’ physical and mental health, and that this impact is likely to be gendered. Although further analysis is required, these data provide insights into further research opportunities needed to assist employers in optimising working from home conditions and reduce the potential negative physical and mental health impacts on their employees.
Keywords: COVID-19; mental health; risk management.
So, long story short: this article is slop, copied from another piece of slop that mischaracterized a study. Overall: meh.
With that, survey data are some of the poorest quality data.
Too bad that happiness is banned in the USA…
What a silly thing to say. It’s merely prohibitively expensive. I mean, reasonably priced and readily available for those that deserve it.
All in a monthly subscription service.
I thought it was a pay-per-smile subscription…
Happiness breeds self esteem, self esteem breeds confidence, confidence breeds learning. Education, confidence, self esteem, and happiness are all antithetical to fear and obedience. We’re much easier to rule if we’re stressed out. Plus, the real reason for return to office is real estate value. It has nothing to do with worker morale or productivity.
To be fair the pursuit of happiness in and of itself is an uncatchable carrot used to push the capitalist agenda. Happy moments are like sprinkles on a doughnut, few and far between. Contentment is what we should really be shooting for.
Yea sucks, they banned compassion and kindness too
Someone has to provide proof for the answers to obvious questions, if for no other reason than to short circuit the “SoUrCe?” clowns.
Exactly. It’s never a bad thing to have hard data on what we think is obvious.
Especially since it’s not uncommon for what’s ‘obvious’ to be wrong.
yah, because I’m not working lol
I work longer hours at home pretty often. At 5 I leave office to make sure my 1.25-1.5 hour drive gets me home at a decent time, and to make sure I miss the worst traffic which I feel happens between 5:30 and 6.
At home I can just keep working, load up a game on my other monitor but keep working open too,and switch between doing some minor game stuff and back to work. I have a game up now at 7 and wrapped up my notes quite comfortably.
I’m also more alert at home because I sleep in more, getting about an hour more sleep.
Little do they know that worker happiness is considered the enemy of productivity.* Plus, it’s harder to micromanage them when they’re at home.
*By employers, not the workers, obviously.
I don’t get this.
When I was unhappy at my last job I was way less productive.
Now I’m enjoying my new job and spend my time solving real technical problems and building real projects.
I was considering taking a pay cut just to leave my last job it had gotten so toxic. You can pay employees less if they’re otherwise satisfied.
It doesn’t make sense, but here we are. We are all individuals with our own strengths and weaknesses, yet workers are considered fungible. If you are dissatisfied and quit, you’ll just be replaced by someone else.
I thought we were social beings… With that said, ofc I would be happier with remote work only.
Spending hours to commute to be around people you don’t choose isn’t necessarily a particularly social experience
We are social, and being close to other people you know while being told to shut up and work is a bit grating. Bonus points if they also say it’s because we’re family and building community.
