KardTrick t1_je10ze5 wrote
The original NYT article pissed me off so much. I actually yelled out loud when he went giddy over China's 996 policy. (9 to 9, 6 days a week.)
I keep seeing article after article talking about how awful remote work is, but almost every study shows it increases productivity and life satisfaction. These assholes really can't handle their "lessers" gaining even a tiny bit more autonomy.
Living-blech t1_je131rq wrote
To contrast the 996 policy, 4-day workweeks have shown quite the positive result so far. The majority of companies that participated say they don't plan to go back.
​
The assholes trying to force everyone back to office are usually business executives that thrive on micro-managing everyone.
SheriffComey t1_je13ily wrote
Our CEO was called out recently for forcing everyone back for a minimum of 3 days a week but hasn't been in the office three days a week this year.
He said his role required him to be out more which didn't land like he thought when several people said "you told us that wasn't a valid excuse"
Turdmonkey2 t1_je2du00 wrote
Let me guess... he didn't care.
SheriffComey t1_je2g5gc wrote
Another exec swooped in and changed the subject because "they were running low on time".
Turdmonkey2 t1_je2ghzi wrote
Well, yeah they were low on time, the yacht was gassed up and the jacuzzi was warm.... what.. are they supposed to let the champaign come to room temperature or something?!
morbious37 t1_je511tw wrote
CEO travel a lot (including on weekends)...
[deleted] t1_je15hym wrote
Fuck 996! I'd sooner starve.
At least they can use my organs for some rich dude, I guess?
UncleFlip t1_je2lreu wrote
Jokes on them, I'm ruining my organs before I die out of spite.
BigBabyBurrito t1_je3ifgm wrote
I’m doing it for fun
[deleted] t1_je3km0w wrote
Amen to that, brutha
Myrianda t1_je1q920 wrote
I wish the US Govt would adopt that policy. I can usually finish all of my work in 2-3 days and I'm just browsing Reddit/Youtube for the rest while I wait to go home. What I wouldn't give to have an extra day of rest or time to take care of stuff at home. The older people here think it's stupid when they spend most of their day wasting time like taking 2-3 hour lunches and/or coffee breaks to stretch out what little work they actually do.
jean__meslier t1_je2bzyt wrote
Dear God I would kill for your job. The stress and competition in my job is degrading my health and sucking the joy out of everything in life.
What department are you in? What qualifications would someone need?
Myrianda t1_je4u3jw wrote
I work in a TS facility, so you'd have to have a clearance plus have Sec+ to start. Other than that, I do Windows AD work, database stuff, and whatever they decide to throw on my plate. I kind of lucked out though, since I was working on my Sec+ and BS while I was doing a low-pay GG3 job, but during Covid the govt barely worked so I took the time to power through my college courses to finish fast.
For security reasons, I can't say where or what I do beyond that, unfortunately. I can't have my phone on me, which really sucks for day-to-day stuff too.
Transition-1744 t1_je3psu5 wrote
Four day 15 hour work weeks even better. https://youtu.be/7EhICK_GL8k
[deleted] t1_je3gwad wrote
[deleted]
Shmageggi t1_je136sl wrote
Same here. The audacity of being patronized by a person whose net worth is in the hundreds of millions and whose interests lie directly in extracting as much value and productivity out of us serfs as the law will allow is staggering. It's further proof of the sneering disdain the aristocratic class holds for the rest of us.
SlientlySmiling t1_je2oiqb wrote
We don't have an aristocracy in the US. Never had, never will.
MooseHeckler t1_je30ut0 wrote
We absolutely have a neo feudal aristocracy.
SlientlySmiling t1_je3bv4e wrote
Then burn them to the ground. We fought a fucking revolution over this.
MooseHeckler t1_je3ckju wrote
I think there should be a soft revolution of sorts to be honest. It seems like the super wealthy are untouchable at times.
davebowmanandhal t1_je3atox wrote
This sounds deliberately obtuse. Although the US doesn’t have a formal aristocratic class, it certainly has a class strata.
esmith000 t1_je5sau1 wrote
Is that what you really want? Everyone to be exact equal? What do you want?
davebowmanandhal t1_je5t9aj wrote
No, my post doesn’t imply that so you can relax with the knee jerk response nonsense.
esmith000 t1_je5tf9n wrote
I literally asked what do you want? And I'm the knee jerking? Lol. No.
Can you answer?
m0le t1_je4crro wrote
Do you have a group of people who are incredibly powerful, don't have to work any more yet often do, gravitating to getting involved in politics, and can pass that power to their family? Does that family power wax and wane over time as they fight with the other families in similar exulted positions?
You have an aristocracy.
TeaKingMac t1_je3824d wrote
We don't have a bunch of people who own things and collect rent off them instead of working?
Yeah, we don't have dukes or counts with hereditary titles, but we absolutely have people who fulfill the other characteristics of an aristocracy
JenniferJuniper6 t1_je3c10r wrote
Right. It’s an oligarchy.
Conscious_Figure_554 t1_je30vzp wrote
996 policy is my selling point of what NOT to expect when I hire people in Beijing. I’ve hired five people so far that came from this type of org and they are so happy that I have kept my promise. These assholes (CEOs) have not worked a forty hour week in a long time. I’m not taking anything away from them with their success but we can’t all be billionaires and CEOs. Most of us just want to live a happy balanced life.
UglyInThMorning t1_je4iv2n wrote
>These assholes have not worked a forty hour week in a long time
I had to read that twice before I realized you were talking about the CEOs and not the people you hired.
cartsucks t1_je1bgh6 wrote
No wonder they let Steve write the garbage opinion piece at the New York Times. He got his start there in his career and was their Chief Washington Economic correspondent.
I could go on and on about why I think the NYT author Steven Rattner is wrong but I will boil it all down to this. He's an ass.
Transition-1744 t1_je3pa64 wrote
9 to 6, 6 days a week is ridiculous. We have enough technology that we should be working three hours a day for four days a week. Famous economist John Keynes predicted something like this almost 100 years ago. It’s ridiculous for us to work this hard with all the technology we have now. Take a look at this video https://youtu.be/7EhICK_GL8k.
AccidentalDM t1_je3dh0j wrote
If nothing else, less time lost to illness.
Granted I’m very salty about being sick right now, since last week was a week I had to be in office. That was the only place I went so whatever I got I had to have picked up from a coworker.
So far they’ve lost 3 days of work from me, and I lost my weekend and 3 evenings that I had counted on to get caught up on all the household tasks that have been piling up from a freaking YEAR of mandatory overtime, extra 5-6 hours a week.
[deleted] t1_je16w7b wrote
[deleted]
JadeitePenguin1 t1_je1js0i wrote
"but almost every study shows it increases productivity and life satisfaction."
They don't. Those studies were crap!
None of them are long term and all take place during COVID or after which means the results are basically meaningless.
Edit: it's amazing how I'm downvoted but yet no one can prove me wrong when it should be easy just link a good study but so far the best I got is studies from companies that sell work from home products....
pixelfishes t1_je26l9u wrote
This is just factually incorrect; they've done studies over multiple countries and work environments. I hate linking Forbes articles, but there's direct links to the studies. Sorry, but business didn't stop during COVID.
JadeitePenguin1 t1_je3dpw5 wrote
Words cannot describe the level of anger I feel reading and finding those links nothing you did but for FUCK SAKE WHY IS IT SO FUCKING HARD TO MAKE A NOT SHIT WEBSITE!
So anyways correct me of I'm wrong(I could easily miss the links due to the site being shit!) but that article doesn't link to the studies other then one which was unbelievable impossible to read on mobile.
That's the first link and it's just their companies site no study but more importantly it's from a company that sells monitoring solutions you know stuff companies would use for remote work....and I'm sorry but I'm not trying to find a study from people who directly benefit from the results since it's pretty clear they have a bais in the matter.
https://owllabs.com/state-of-remote-work/2021/
That's the 2nd link(also site note Forbes says 3 studies but that company did 2 so it would be 4 studies) and the site is close to unusable on mobile for me but anyways ONCE AGAIN from a company that benefits from work from home....so yeah I'm not going to read those either.
https://www.ergotron.com/en-us/
The last link is a another sales company.....and the study found hybrid work the best and they just coincidentally happen sell both office and home stuff.....and also I just went off of what Forbes said as well since I couldn't even find a study on their site.
I don't mean to be rude but did you look a the links yourself? Why would you believe a study from a companies who benefits from the results? What do you think of the results didn't favor them they would publish it? Especially when finding said study on their sites is extremely difficult(for me at least) for I would definitely say not trustworthy.
HoboBaggins008 t1_je2502b wrote
Have there ever been studies pre-covid that investigate WFH and shorter work weeks?
Show your work (hint: yes, yes there are).
JadeitePenguin1 t1_je2i09h wrote
And yet no links to said studies....and idk why you are bringing up shorter work weeks when I never talked about that...
Methelod t1_je2rfch wrote
Here, from the commentor below. Which you suspiciously ignored.
JadeitePenguin1 t1_je3f19r wrote
And the studies are from companies who sell work from home products.....I don't waste my time finding or reading studies from companies who put out a study saying their products are great!
I don't need to find a study from tide about how their pods are WAY better then others to say their claim is BS because study itself is made to make them win!
happybarfday t1_je38bgl wrote
Oh well isn't that convenient... but we won't be able to ever get that data because we all need to get back to the office in the meantime right?
If that data is meaningless then so is the data about working at the office, because we have nothing to compare it to. Working in the office could be the worst way to conduct business, but I guess we'll never know.
Wild-Sand-5877 t1_je1y371 wrote
Okay, so how do you propose we get this pre-Covid remote work data? Because I’m out of ideas, and I’d rather have a study to test out rather than nothing to test out. The study having a result you don’t like doesn’t make it untrue, but testing it and getting different results might.
JadeitePenguin1 t1_je2285s wrote
Wait until COVID is out of everyone's minds....have studies lasting more then a year, use companies that didn't use remote work....
There's so many ways....you're out of ideas because you didn't think once!
If they can't test correctly they shouldn't test at all, COVID hurts a lot of the control testing since people might just like working from home due to fear of COVID.
Wild-Sand-5877 t1_je2dh8b wrote
We’re talking about the huge number of jobs that went remote due to a global pandemic, and you want to wait for the pandemic to be “out of everybody’s minds” before we figure out how the remote work should be handled going forward? Ignoring the possibility of another one coming up, this isn’t going to be gone for a long time, and sending everybody back when preliminary studies imply benefits is catering to the people that don’t like it more than bringing back any supposed benefits of office work
FieldSton-ie_Filler t1_je2nbnm wrote
Out of ideas cause you didnt think once... Lmao.
Yeah, gimme what this guy's smoking, so i can actually go into the office with his disconnected shit attude...
JadeitePenguin1 t1_je2y747 wrote
So basically you're mad you can't prove me wrong got it. Because that's THE ONLY reason to give a response like that.
FieldSton-ie_Filler t1_je32deu wrote
Nah because it's been a busy day and you're delusional.
I'll take some of that and plop my ass on the couch...
JadeitePenguin1 t1_je3f42w wrote
Nope you have nothing that's why.
Specialist_Honey_629 t1_je4q4lc wrote
except Australia has a few studies on this. That completely contradict your statement. Centre for Transformative Work Design has a few. Have a good day daddy
JadeitePenguin1 t1_je55nkl wrote
And yet no links to said studies...
If you can't back up your claims don't make them.
Specialist_Honey_629 t1_je5oohe wrote
>Centre for Transformative Work Design
Also pointing out there is another study out of china that I have posted a link to. Again making your comments meritless
JadeitePenguin1 t1_je5rw23 wrote
Also you mean your link that doesn't work...
Specialist_Honey_629 t1_je5vmcl wrote
yea doesn't work for you conveniently https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256051553_Does_Working_from_Home_Work_Evidence_from_a_Chinese_Experiment
JadeitePenguin1 t1_je66o0e wrote
Yeah you 100% didn't click the link...it says error 404, the site it's on works meaning what you linked isn't right....
Specialist_Honey_629 t1_je6775e wrote
my man do you not know how to use the internet?
Abstract
A rising share of employees now regularly engage in working from home (WFH), but there are concerns this can lead to “shirking from home.” We report the results of a WFH experiment at Ctrip, a 16,000-employee, NASDAQ-listed Chinese travel agency. Call center employees who volunteered to WFH were randomly assigned either to work from home or in the office for nine months. Home working led to a 13% performance increase, of which 9% was from working more minutes per shift (fewer breaks and sick days) and 4% from more calls per minute (attributed to a quieter and more convenient working environment). Home workers also reported improved work satisfaction, and their attrition rate halved, but their promotion rate conditional on performance fell. Due to the success of the experiment, Ctrip rolled out the option to WFH to the whole firm and allowed the experimental employees to reselect between the home and office. Interestingly, over half of them switched, which led to the gains from WFH almost doubling to 22%. This highlights the benefits of learning and selection effects when adopting modern management practices like WFH. JEL Codes: D24, L23, L84, M11, M54, O31.
Working-Ad4480 t1_je684rv wrote
Works for me?
Specialist_Honey_629 t1_je5nqia wrote
my dude I told you right where to go to find it. Do you know how to google? if so google Centre for Transformative work design. Put on those big boy pants and do some work your self.
JadeitePenguin1 t1_je5q9ev wrote
If you can't link you're wrong!
I'm not going to look up your proof that's your job!
Living-blech t1_je38k3j wrote
Still quite convenient that you've yet to respond to those that provided evidence against your claims, yet still say others can't prove you wrong.
Afraid of the evidence, or think your belief is far above it?
JadeitePenguin1 t1_je3ef79 wrote
I just replied to them,I wanted to give them the best chance they could and sit down and read the studies which is why I didn't respond, and the studies I can't find easily and all of the links are to companies who sell products for remote work and I shouldn't have to explain why those studies shouldn't be trusted.
If those companies found the opposite they wouldn't say and it's not hard to create a misleading study especially when they don't make them easily accessible.
happybarfday t1_je38ts0 wrote
You can't be proved right either because we have nothing to compare the full-week-at-the-office to, so it's just as meaningless. The economy is in the toilet, productively is abysmal, and people are miserable, there's your evidence.
Specialist_Honey_629 t1_je4rkdl wrote
[deleted] t1_je55qkg wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments