359
Grindr loses nearly half its staff to strict return-to-work rule
(www.latimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
359 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
57273 readers
4566 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
These return-to-office pushes are moronic. We've had three years of remote work without any loss of productivity. Tell us the real reason for the push to be in the office or get the fuck out of my face.
They are veiled layoffs
union busting
That too, for this case at least.
Great way to lose all the best people at your company in a totally uncontrolled manner.
They're giving us bullshit reasons and look how mad people are about it.
The Canadian federal government has been pushing hybrid for about a year now. When it all started they hosted a town hall to answer questions and stuff. One of the directors told a story about how she is happy to go back to the office because she can go to her local Subway and support the business. This erupted into weeks of memes about how we're being forced to the office just to keep Subway in business.
I can't imagine the response to them outright saying they are doing this to please big businesses and landlords.
Corporations get tax breaks from cities based on expected work population and its resulting economic impact on the local economy. Without people in the office, these tax breaks become legally in jeopardy as the city could argue the company hasn't lived up to its agreement.
And a lot of execs have money in corporate real estate, which, as you can imagine, has lost some value in the last few years.
It's always about money.
A lot of middle managers than need to show that they are usefull and not a bottleneck or useless positions
One of the real reasons is that companies put a shitton of money into physical infrastructure and based their entire selling point for jobs on office perks. Amd now they dont know what to do with that stuff sitting empty.
Well the way I see it, allowing me to keep getting my fucjing shit done from HOME is possibly THE biggest perk a company can offer to differentiate itself from the moronic ones who don't.
But you'll miss the pizza party! Lunch hour only.
Exactly. I think it has to do with the old way of thinking. They might think that working in office is more productive.
I don't. I think that is just a convenient excuse.
In a corporate world it is always about the money full stop.
The real reasons are not benefiting the employee, thats why they dont tell them. These are:
You can guess where the RTO orders are coming from.
I'm my limited experience, I've noticed a difference between companies that have invested in real estate and those that haven't. Companies who own their buildings are very strict about pushing for their expensive buildings to not sit empty. Companies who lease office space, and especially of they have flexible terms, seem to be more chill about it. Just a general observation.
Except for government, they renew their lease lol.
Yeah. Our boss saw a huge savings stream from lack of the office, so WFH for life for everyone.
What we're seeing is large corporations who have contractual obligations surrounding their office spaces, land leases and the buildings they own worried that if everyone goes remote the market for such property dissappears and so does their investment so they are forcing people back into the office to artificially bolster the market for office space while they work to get their money out of the industry and find any bag holders they can to offset future losses, all at the expense of the wellbeing of the working class.
I know the Lemmy/Reddit hive mentality is all "Let me work at home, there's zero benefit to being in the office", but there's another side. We've never had a workforce so disengaged, isolated and feeling no sense of community.
Ok - but I don’t go to work for a sense of community? I go to work to earn money to survive. My tasks get done, profits are up overall so why do I need to feel engaged and how does being isolated have any negative effect on that?
All I can say is that I manage a team of people and frequently get the following two messages: "I don't want to come to the office. I feel very isolated working by myself at home - oh my mental health." What are we supposed to do with this?
Tell the ones who feel isolated to go to a bar in their off hours or something.
So your team of people work in the office? And they rather work at home? What's exactly your point?
What about giving them a choice without mandating either?
I’m the opposite. I manage a BAU team and our team are active on slack, and seem to be thriving. We have two webex meetings a week, keep in constant touch and we all love it.
Online communities are more than good enough at the best of times so I don’t see how they can’t work in the professional space.
There is LinkedIn if you want a Facebook-like experience. There are 1-on-1 networking sites too, for mentors. Obviously bars or sports after work. Book clubs, parent groups, etc.
If you want company and are looking to your job, that's like trying to make money off of your friends. Kinda stupid.
Source?