488
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 88 points 1 year ago

That’s part of it. Another part is middle management can’t function without seeing you. Finally, it’s not worth it to a company to maintain a lease on a building if nobody works there and it’s not easy getting out of those leases.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago

What doesn't make sense is why they're not firing the useless middle managers.

[-] glad_cat@lemmy.sdf.org 34 points 1 year ago

Where I work, it’s the middle managers who make a list of useless people. They obviously won’t put their own names on the list.

[-] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Even a structure that is only a house of cards still depends on the cards of the middle tiers to hold itself up.

[-] BigBlackCockroach@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Not if it only has one layer!

[-] MisterD@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 year ago

Then middle management is either incompetent or like micro manage.

[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 year ago

There are so many fucking managers and administrators in modern organizations.

[-] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What would you recommend to capitalists, for defending themselves from the broader population, that might be a superior alternative to using human shields?

[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago
[-] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Until it happens, it seems the shields are working in their interests.

[-] bouh@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

The lease is already paid, or the money is planned to be paid. You can't recover this money anyway. But you can still save on energy and cleaning.

Getting out of the lease is as easy as not renewing it.

[-] isles@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, it is that easy. Commercial leases are often in the 10-20 year range, however.

[-] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'm skeptical a company would take that. They want to be able to shut down contracts with employee on a whim but somehow they would engage for a 20 years in a building? If it's not a big industry I severely doubt it, and those are rarely I city centers for obvious reasons.

[-] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You're right logically.

I suspect the difference we see in reality is due to graft, bribery, money laundering and outright fraud that went into those contract negotiations.

[-] triclops6@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

I agree with most of this except the lease is a sunk cost, making people come in based on a variable that won't change is bad decision making, the discussion should be made independently of lease. I agree some managers think this way, it's usually the ones who could benefit from remedial business finance classes.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yes and no. It's more like a trap that the company is trapped in. It's the corporate equivalent of having to keep renting an apartment you don't live in anymore and can't sub-let. The sunk cost fallacy applies, but also it's a case of "we're stuck with this and we're going to USE it even if it kills our wage slaves."

[-] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The larger issue may be that companies occupying the buildings supports interests of the owning class, and so its influence is being applied accordingly to shape the larger social forces.

this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
488 points (95.2% liked)

Work Reform

10142 readers
76 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS