339

80% of bosses say they regret earlier return-to-office plans: ‘A lot of executives have egg on their faces’ (www.cnbc.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

80% of bosses say they regret earlier return-to-office plans: ‘A lot of executives have egg on their faces’::As some business leaders accept hybrid work as a permanent reality, others are backtracking on earlier pledges to let employees work from home.

all 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] DragonAce@lemmy.world 95 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Those assholes should have never pushed the shit in the first place. Giving people the freedom to work from home and still live their life at the same time, then trying to snatch it away and force a return to the office, is clearly going to cause some serious push back. But these fucks were more worried about justifying their expensive office leases, than actually listening to and respecting their employees. A lot of those shit companies got what they deserved, empty offices, weakened workforce, and less overall productivity. Good job assholes.

[+] PhantomPhanatic@lemmy.world -12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Working from home is a benefit that is worth money. People are willing to get paid less for the benefit of working from home all else equal. Effectively, if you got to work from home, you got a raise. Forcing people to come back to the office after allowing working from home is like giving a raise and then taking it back. I agree that this is shitty and sucks.

However, when you negotiated your pay it was for a particular job with certain benefits. Complaining about your company not giving you a benefit that wasn't initially part of your hiring negotiation is basically asking for a raise that they aren't obligated to provide.

Edit: I guess this isn't a popular opinion. I felt I was contributing to a conversation that seemed a little one sided by offering an alternative look at it. From an economic perspective there's nothing wrong about what I've said. I don't agree that it's a nice or even ethical thing to do, but the backlash (against companies that push for RTO) seems overly dramatic to me.

[-] whatisallthis@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago

The way you keep employees and build a strong team is by giving them things you aren’t obligated to provide.

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

Honestly, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I love working from home and feel that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks in almost all ways. I agree with your sentiment, but without a good understanding of what companies are giving away and whether they can afford it is a big part of why back to office was hurried along.

HR has to basically rewrite the book on everything after such a big shake-up in the culture of employment. New calculations for salaries, new requirements for liability, new hurdles for IT, infrastructure, and security. These are all costs to companies because the culture shifted. Working from home was mandatory for a short time, but it wasn't obvious that companies could make it all work without time to sort out how to best do it.

[-] whatisallthis@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah the problem is there would never be any reason for companies to even try to make working from home work unless some life or death event like COVID forced them to.

There was never going to be an easy transition for them. It was either nothing or against their will.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

They weren't obligated to provide it, no. The local Taco Bell never did (essential).

But once given (out of necessity), it becomes baseline. It is now the basis of comparison and part of the competition for talent. As many CEOs are finding out.

[-] Anduin1357@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

basically asking for a raise that they aren't obligated to provide.

Well, employees aren't obligated to not resign either.

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

Yeah, that's how employment works.

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

Doing the best work in the best place shouldn't be considered a benefit given to you. It's a benefit alright but mutually so.

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"We believe that a structured hybrid approach — meaning employees that live near an office need to be onsite two days a week to interact with their teams — is most effective for Zoom"

If only there was some kind of chat/video conferencing software you could use to collaborate with your team anytime you wanted...

[-] Mamertine@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

employees that live near an office need to be onsite

Sigh, why are you punishing people based on where they live?

That's a great way to ruin moral. Create 2 classes of workers.

[-] Misconduct@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

Brb moving to another state

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

There is this farmhouse that is going on the market in the middle of nowhere soon. If my work had that policy I would already be getting ready to list my current house.

[-] SpiderShoeCult@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

Divide et impera? it's not always about morale.

I've had a department head who thrived on low morale. People mostly unhappy, yet the she always got what she wanted, be it overtime or information on the state of things 'under the table'. Also very good at misdirection, since she always had a mad dog under her command that people could freely hate. If you were good at what you did, you got it a bit better than the 'plebs' but it was a very high stress work environment that took quite a toll on my mental health. Getting a raise was the best thing ever.

Being privy to how the 'plebs' were considered and participating in meetings where you'd basically reallocate people to projects like pieces of meat was a very interesting experience. Cultivation of individuality and 'fuck you, got mine' attitude.

It's an... interesting... management style. Not for the faint-hearted but for sure a good experience to have at least as a baseline.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Someone should create it, they would be millionaires, think of all the money these guys are missing out on. Some of these bosses should bring their teams into the office and get right to it.

[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 45 points 1 year ago

80% of bosses regret their initial return-to-office decisions and say they would have approached their plans differently if they had a better understanding of employees’ office attendance, their usage of office amenities and other related factors

In other words, if they'd tried, even just a little, to actually do their jobs.

Bunch of clowns.

[-] insaneinthemembrane@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

If they had even tried to talk to people, gather data, think about it...

[-] splix@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 year ago

Regret how they went about implementing back to work.

[-] chakan2@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

In response, EY announced a fund in February 2022 to reimburse up to $800 per year for commuting, pet care and dependent care costs for each of its 55,000-plus U.S. employees.

Sorry... a < .5% raise isn't enough to get me back in an office.

[-] insaneinthemembrane@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

800 per year? My god what are these execs paying their nannies that they think this is anything substantial for such a massive sacrifice of time and energy to be in an office.

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah $800 would maybe cover my train tickets. Probably not quite. Pet care expenses? I don’t even really know what that means.

But dependent care???? They must be high.

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

Pet care... Dog walking, cat feeding. I assume.

$800 wouldn't cover childcare for 1 child for 1 month.

[-] ozymandias117@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Knowing an exec who has a nanny, they’re paying them around $7,000 a year and trying to make them feel like they never do enough

Their nanny works around 75 hours a week

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

Jesus Christ that's cruel.

[+] burningquestion@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

[deleted]

[-] doublejay1999@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I suspect they were ‘advised’ by the Banks and perhaps the government, to put the brakes on.

Every Corporation would be delighted to dump expensive city real estate, and “externalise facilities costs” to the workforce. ( which is what working from home is, from a balance sheet point of view). It’s what they teach at business school.

However, it would only take a handful of big players to to do this in succession to collapse the real estate market in most cities.

The knock on effect would likely include some large defaults by landlords and developers and who knows where that ends.

A secondary effect is house prices. certainly in London, where people pay a 2-5x premium to live within an hour of they high paying job.

If people no longer need to live near the office, why would they spend so much on crappy housing ? It would likely trigger an exodus away from the capital, collapsing the housing market.

In the UK if the housing market collapses, the economy follows it down the tube in massive way.

Hence the half hearted ‘push’ to get people back in the office .

[-] jasondj@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 year ago

I bought my current house, 5 years ago, in a MA town a little closer to Providence than Boston (but still rather convenient for both cities).

My real estate agent called me yesterday out of the blue to see if we were considering any moves. We’re not, because we refi’d a couple years ago at a great rate, and even moving into a similar value house now would mean a significant increase in our mortgage.

I’m sure she’s heard that same story a lot of times. Nobody wants to sell because they then have to buy, and we’ve all got great rates from a couple years ago.

[-] RinseDrizzle@midwest.social 22 points 1 year ago

I've never really accepted the theory that return to office pushes are driven by office maintenance costs, or whatever. Hell, those expenses go UP when everyone is back. Working from home takes away electrical usage, and mitigates janitorial demand. If productivity is up or equal, and building maintenance costs are down, then wtf is it really about?

[-] negativeyoda@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

A lot of companies are stuck in long term leases so they're paying rent whether the buildings are being used or not. When out of touch upper management sees cubicles laying fallow they get pissed

[-] frezik@midwest.social 15 points 1 year ago

Yup, classic sunk cost. We're paying for this, why aren't we using it?

This should get interesting in the next few years when those leases come up due and companies decide they can shrink their office substantially.

[-] cottonmon@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

That's still weird though. You could still generate more savings from the utilities costs if you don't have your people return to work. The company I worked for actually reduced office space because of the savings.

[-] whatisallthis@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Imagine what would happen if a bunch of huge fully-remote companies with no office space were told by the government that they now had to buy a building for workers to work in.

Imagine how fast their opinion would switch.

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

The boss has to feel like he's doing stuff.

It's for the bad boss' ego. Or the boss lives in fear that he adds no value to the organization and wants to hide that from his boss.

[-] Gsus4@feddit.nl 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hehe, how is he going to self-promote if there is nobody to see him boss people around?

[-] HaggierRapscallier@feddit.nl 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm surprised people aren't aware of the real estate mob. It's the oligarchy who are pushing for return to offices. They have valuable investments in both big companies and the real estate, and they don't want to see the values of their assets going down.

[-] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

Don't worry, they will divest now while it's propped up. When they are divested and it's suckers holding the bag, they will be fine with wfh.

The dam is broken, there is no going back. It will be different by company and industry but it's not going away.

[-] EndOfLine@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I just don't get it. That money has already been spent or guaranteed for the current leases. It's a sunk cost either way. If they end up not needing it that office space then, once those leases are up, that become a cost saving and improve the bottom line of corporate profits right?

Only thing I can think of is that a a considerable percentage of upper management are getting kick backs by property owners who can see what WFH policies mean to their business model, or there are a lot of managers that don't know how to evaluate employee performance based on their deliverables.

[-] yumcake@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's about ego. The boss doesn't know how to make the company perform better, they're all out of ideas. They have to change something to make it look like they're doing something, so RTO is the low hanging fruit.

There's really no more justification needed than that. Looking at practical benefits to explain RTO pushes won't get you answers because the practical benefits are so slim and conditional relative to the strain it creates.

It's all about ego. They self-identity as the hardcore alpha boss that deserves high pay because they "earn" it. So to massage that ego, they go into the office even though they dont need to, and are meeting with nobody there. It's pointless but it feeds their ego.

So they feel alone at the office...and in that worldview they are hardworking (an assumed condition), and nobody else is there, therefore everyone else is not hardworking (regardless of how much work they're actually doing).

[-] halfmanhalfalligator@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago

I have never heard the expression and am now wondering if the executives faces are covered in raw egg? Is it scrambled? Sunny side up? The German doesn't know.

[-] Colorcodedresistor@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago

dont over think it. visualize someone with a raw uncooked yoke broken over their face...they look stupid.

its an older meme from before the internet but, it still clears port authority on occasion.

[-] SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org 12 points 1 year ago

Yes this "meme" predates the Internet by just a tad.

With egg on one’s face means means appearing ridiculous or foolish because of one’s actions. The phrase with egg on one’s face is an American idiom, though the origins are murky. One possible source goes back to popular theater during the 1800s and early 1900s.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

don't over think it

If German engineers are anything to go by, you're asking the wrong person to not over think!

[-] lemann@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago

I misread "sunny" as "scummy" at first

this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023

339 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

59312 readers

4536 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS