Trump47 First Week & Beyond Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 24K
  • Politics 
The chart from rodoheel's link shows, at least as recently as 2022, that every industry tracked had a decrease in remote work from the previous year:

Screenshot 2025-01-29 7.31.29 AM - Display 1.png

IMG_1561.gif

Again, are many companies moving employees back to either hybrid or 5 day in office? Yes. Is the reason due to productivity? Majority of situations, no, it isn’t. Do they try to dress it up as that? Maybe. But studies show that’s a false narrative.
 
I mentioned above that your link showed a decrease in remote work from 2021 to 2022 in every industry tracked. I'm sure there are some exceptions for the reasons why companies are going back to in-office work but, unless companies simply enjoy paying for unnecessary infrastructure, what could it be besides production?
1. Older bosses/managers don't trust employees to actually be working while remote
2. Older bosses/managers don't understand and aren't comfortable with remote technology themselves, which makes it harder for them to interact with and manage remote employees
3. Older bosses/managers are used to working in the office with their team in person, and shouting down the hall for people, and are uncomfortable adapting to a different work model.
4. General corporate culture some places that involves constant monitoring in the (mistaken, IMO) belief that it ensures and incentivizes productivity
5. Long-term office leases are a sunk cost and business want to justify those costs by getting employees back into the office
6. Relatedly, cutting back on remote work may allow cost-cutting by not having to pay for as much digital infrastructure necessary for full remote work

I'm confident that some of these owners/managers think that in-person work is more productive (or have managed to convince themselves of that). And there certainly are some jobs that require in-person work no matter what. I just don't think the data really supports that, in broad strokes, going to heavier remote work caused any drop in productivity (or that going back to heavier in-person work will increase productivity).

In the specific case of Musk and the memo to government employees, it is 100% the case that forcing federal employees back into the office is not meant to make them more productive; it is meant to make working for the federal government crappier so more employees will quit.
 
Personally I actually work more when I work from home. I put in more hours and I’m okay with that. I get more done. The time it takes me to get office ready and get to the office, that times goes to working. Plus I am able to cook my meals and it makes it much easier to go to the gym in the morning.

Apologies NYC - will get hack to the general topic 😀
 
Remote workers actually aren’t more productive. Will bosses finally call them back in this year?
Jan. 4, 2024 3 AM PT

These days, it looks like the bloom is coming off the rose for remote work: Many employers are talking tougher. New research shows employees are actually less productive when they work from home full-time. And, with the tight job market starting to slacken, some predict 2024 will be the year employers finally clamp down.

But don’t be too quick to conclude things are going back to the days of 9 to 5 in the old cubicle.

It’s true that widespread studies based on standard measures of efficiency have found that fully remote employees are 10% to 20% less productive than those working on company premises. Challenges related to communications, coordination and self-motivation may be factors in the decline.

And some employers have been warning that those who fail to meet new standards for being in the office may find adverse effects on their performance evaluations and incomes.

But the new research that showed lower productivity by full-time remote workers also found that those on a hybrid schedule — some days at home and some on site — were about as productive as those in the office full time. And there’s some evidence that companies offering greater flexibility to workers may achieve better financial results.

Potentially even more important than abstract data are the surprisingly deep feelings of a great many workers about holding on to at least some degree of flexibility. And those personal feelings, which involve such cut-to-the-bone issues as commuting and the cost of child care, are being reinforced by gains in communications technology and the persistent shortage of qualified workers.

Since the pandemic, John Sturr, a 58-year-old social worker for Sonoma County, has been working two to three days a week from his desk in his bedroom. On days in the office he confers with colleagues and responds to walk-ins. He’s come to love the arrangement.

“The commute is beautiful, through vineyards” along the Russian River Valley, he says, “but it’s an hour out of your day.” The time that Sturr saves he uses to put dinner on early and run errands.

“I’ve never been able to telework my whole career. Previous managers were always suspicious. This is kind of amazing.”

Productivity vs. profitability
Today, about 30% of all full-time employees are on a hybrid schedule, according to WFH Research, which monitors remote work trends by surveying thousands of workers every month. Deborah Lovich, who leads Boston Consulting Group’s work on “people strategy,” sees more employers adopting hybrid work as they see the financial and nonfinancial benefits. “I do think people will come around,” she said.

The outlook for fully remote workers, who currently make up about 10% of all employment, appears more cloudy. Those job openings have been shrinking faster in recent months as the job market has slowed.

Many people working full time from home are in high-paying tech and information industries, which explains why San Francisco and Los Angeles metro areas are No. 1 and 2, respectively, when it comes to the share of all full-time workdays done at home, at 46% and 40% as of November.

At the other end of the pay scale are fully remote workers in administrative and more routine functions, such as customer service representatives at call centers, where many jobs may be further eroded by artificial intelligence.

But even fully remote work has things going for it. For many employers, what may be lost in productivity can at least partly be made up in cost savings from cutting back on office and related expenses. Plus, these companies can hire workers more cheaply anywhere in the world. All told, Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University estimated that those savings may average 10% of a company’s operating costs.

“Firms shouldn’t care about productivity, they should care about profitability,” said Bloom, who is part of the WFH Research group.

Whatever the productivity studies may show, Bloom said, what’s happening is intuitive. “Look at their actions,” he said. “This is no longer a pandemic, and millions of firms in a capitalist economy are doing something consistently [in sticking with remote work]. I can only conclude it’s profitable.”

Santa Monica-based TrueCar decided to go fully remote after the pandemic. “It gives us full access to talent,” said Jill Angel, chief people officer at the firm, which operates a digital platform helping consumers shop and price cars.

TrueCar has cut back about two-thirds of its office space and eventually plans to get down to just 4,000 square feet, enough for client meetings and team-building events.

The company currently has about 325 employees across the country. And over the last three years, 48 employees have moved out of California to other states, with Texas and Washington being the most popular destinations.

Workers are happier when they have control and certainty over their work schedules, Angel said, and the firm is betting that over time that will help make it both more productive and more profitable.

“I do know we’re not going back,” she said.

 
I detest what Trump supporters stand for and what they voted for but I'd never ever in a bazillion years wish that any of them would lose their jobs or their livelihoods. It's hard enough as it is to get by these days- nobody deserves joblessness, loss of income, and loss of ability to care for loved ones over fucking politics. No one. That's why people like ramrouser who are celebrating it are complete shitstains on the asscrack of humanity.

I don't care what someone's politics are. The overwhelming vast majority of people on both sides of the political/ideological spectrum are just regular human beings trying to make it. They're regular human beings with families and loved ones and mortgages and bills and hopes and goals and dreams and fears and worries and doubts. Nobody deserves to have their livelihood stripped away because a bunch of cocksuckers in Washington DC think it's funny to be cruel.
 
My company has been remote long before the pandemic. If the company has culture and organization tailored towards remote work, then I think it’s pretty clear that disrupting that would lead to a loss of productivity. If I was forced to go into the office (which wouldn’t happen because we don’t even have an office), I know my productivity would drop.
 
Remote workers actually aren’t more productive. Will bosses finally call them back in this year?
Jan. 4, 2024 3 AM PT

These days, it looks like the bloom is coming off the rose for remote work: Many employers are talking tougher. New research shows employees are actually less productive when they work from home full-time. And, with the tight job market starting to slacken, some predict 2024 will be the year employers finally clamp down.

But don’t be too quick to conclude things are going back to the days of 9 to 5 in the old cubicle.

It’s true that widespread studies based on standard measures of efficiency have found that fully remote employees are 10% to 20% less productive than those working on company premises. Challenges related to communications, coordination and self-motivation may be factors in the decline.

And some employers have been warning that those who fail to meet new standards for being in the office may find adverse effects on their performance evaluations and incomes.

But the new research that showed lower productivity by full-time remote workers also found that those on a hybrid schedule — some days at home and some on site — were about as productive as those in the office full time. And there’s some evidence that companies offering greater flexibility to workers may achieve better financial results.

Potentially even more important than abstract data are the surprisingly deep feelings of a great many workers about holding on to at least some degree of flexibility. And those personal feelings, which involve such cut-to-the-bone issues as commuting and the cost of child care, are being reinforced by gains in communications technology and the persistent shortage of qualified workers.

Since the pandemic, John Sturr, a 58-year-old social worker for Sonoma County, has been working two to three days a week from his desk in his bedroom. On days in the office he confers with colleagues and responds to walk-ins. He’s come to love the arrangement.

“The commute is beautiful, through vineyards” along the Russian River Valley, he says, “but it’s an hour out of your day.” The time that Sturr saves he uses to put dinner on early and run errands.

“I’ve never been able to telework my whole career. Previous managers were always suspicious. This is kind of amazing.”

Productivity vs. profitability
Today, about 30% of all full-time employees are on a hybrid schedule, according to WFH Research, which monitors remote work trends by surveying thousands of workers every month. Deborah Lovich, who leads Boston Consulting Group’s work on “people strategy,” sees more employers adopting hybrid work as they see the financial and nonfinancial benefits. “I do think people will come around,” she said.

The outlook for fully remote workers, who currently make up about 10% of all employment, appears more cloudy. Those job openings have been shrinking faster in recent months as the job market has slowed.

Many people working full time from home are in high-paying tech and information industries, which explains why San Francisco and Los Angeles metro areas are No. 1 and 2, respectively, when it comes to the share of all full-time workdays done at home, at 46% and 40% as of November.

At the other end of the pay scale are fully remote workers in administrative and more routine functions, such as customer service representatives at call centers, where many jobs may be further eroded by artificial intelligence.

But even fully remote work has things going for it. For many employers, what may be lost in productivity can at least partly be made up in cost savings from cutting back on office and related expenses. Plus, these companies can hire workers more cheaply anywhere in the world. All told, Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University estimated that those savings may average 10% of a company’s operating costs.

“Firms shouldn’t care about productivity, they should care about profitability,” said Bloom, who is part of the WFH Research group.

Whatever the productivity studies may show, Bloom said, what’s happening is intuitive. “Look at their actions,” he said. “This is no longer a pandemic, and millions of firms in a capitalist economy are doing something consistently [in sticking with remote work]. I can only conclude it’s profitable.”

Santa Monica-based TrueCar decided to go fully remote after the pandemic. “It gives us full access to talent,” said Jill Angel, chief people officer at the firm, which operates a digital platform helping consumers shop and price cars.

TrueCar has cut back about two-thirds of its office space and eventually plans to get down to just 4,000 square feet, enough for client meetings and team-building events.

The company currently has about 325 employees across the country. And over the last three years, 48 employees have moved out of California to other states, with Texas and Washington being the most popular destinations.

Workers are happier when they have control and certainty over their work schedules, Angel said, and the firm is betting that over time that will help make it both more productive and more profitable.

“I do know we’re not going back,” she said.


https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-13/remote-work-productivity.htm




Surprising Working From Home Productivity Statistics (2025)



Study finds hybrid work benefits companies and employees



Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance - Nature



Working From Home Is Powering Productivity
 
Your first two links are both referencing data from 2022 and earlier. What newer data is showing is that hybrid (your 3rd and 4th links) is the sweet spot for productivity, while work from home isn't maintaining productivity in more recent studies.
 
“… In short, the offer of a buyout is attractive to many employees precisely because the Trump administration has made the prospect of staying so unattractive.

The draft resignation letter shared by OPM includes the phrase that “I am certain of my decision to resign and my choice to resign is fully voluntary”. On the other hand, employees are also told by OPM “we cannot give you full assurance regarding the certainty of your position or agency.” So, fully voluntary, if you ignore the gun being held to their head. Fully voluntary, when the alternative is a toxic workplace.

The offer is not as good as it sounds​

Some details about the offer. To accept the offer, employees must respond by February 6. The resignation offer specifies: “If you resign under this program, you will retain all pay and benefits regardless of your daily workload and will be exempted from all applicable in-person work requirements until September 30, 2025.” An FAQ on the topics says: “Except in rare cases determined by your agency, you are not expected to work.”

The draft resignation letter employees would be committing to amounts to a lot less:

I understand my employing agency will likely make adjustments in response to my resignation including moving, eliminating, consolidating, reassigning my position and tasks, reducing my official duties, and/or placing me on paid administrative leave until my resignation date.I am committed to ensuring a smooth transition during my remaining time at my employing agency. Accordingly, I will assist my employing agency with completing reasonable and customary tasks and processes to facilitate my departure.
To be clear: employees are not being offered a buyout or severance package. They would be offering to resign in September, and until them enjoy an exemption from in-person work and an uncertain possibility of less work for the last few months of their job.…”
 
Your first two links are both referencing data from 2022 and earlier. What newer data is showing is that hybrid (your 3rd and 4th links) is the sweet spot for productivity, while work from home isn't maintaining productivity in more recent studies.
Sounds like we're all on the same page that the Trump admin's full-time return to work mandate is pretty dumb (even if you give it the benefit of the doubt that it's trying to improve government worker productivity, as opposed to just a gambit meant to force government workers to quit).
 
If workers aren't happy they aren't going to be productive, either. I don't think forcing people to go back into the office would make most of them happy.
 
“… In short, the offer of a buyout is attractive to many employees precisely because the Trump administration has made the prospect of staying so unattractive.

The draft resignation letter shared by OPM includes the phrase that “I am certain of my decision to resign and my choice to resign is fully voluntary”. On the other hand, employees are also told by OPM “we cannot give you full assurance regarding the certainty of your position or agency.” So, fully voluntary, if you ignore the gun being held to their head. Fully voluntary, when the alternative is a toxic workplace.

The offer is not as good as it sounds​

Some details about the offer. To accept the offer, employees must respond by February 6. The resignation offer specifies: “If you resign under this program, you will retain all pay and benefits regardless of your daily workload and will be exempted from all applicable in-person work requirements until September 30, 2025.” An FAQ on the topics says: “Except in rare cases determined by your agency, you are not expected to work.”

The draft resignation letter employees would be committing to amounts to a lot less:


To be clear: employees are not being offered a buyout or severance package. They would be offering to resign in September, and until them enjoy an exemption from in-person work and an uncertain possibility of less work for the last few months of their job.…”
Bingo. As I've said before, they've set this up as a classic rug-pull. Make employees think they're being offered severance to not work, when in fact they are not being fully let out of work. My guess is many employees who take this deal will get some random email at 2 in the morning in a couple weeks asking them to send all their files to someone at OMB by 8 AM the next morning, then when they don't do it they will be informed that they violated the terms of their severance so they don't get paid anymore. That's if Musk and the Trump admin even intend to pay them any "severance" at all, which I doubt (and as Schumer has noted it's not clear the admin can even legally do),

A move straight out of the sleazy tech startup CEO playbook. Government workers should listen to what former Twitter employees say about the "severance" they were offered.
 
I mentioned above that your link showed a decrease in remote work from 2021 to 2022 in every industry tracked. I'm sure there are some exceptions for the reasons why companies are going back to in-office work but, unless companies simply enjoy paying for unnecessary infrastructure, what could it be besides production?
corporate leases are not year to year. Many are 10+ years. So, until those leases run out (and Covid really hit the USA less than 5 yeas ago), they aren't going to save or waste anything. They are bound.

The production stuff is a farce. Stop parroting it.
 
I detest what Trump supporters stand for and what they voted for but I'd never ever in a bazillion years wish that any of them would lose their jobs or their livelihoods. It's hard enough as it is to get by these days- nobody deserves joblessness, loss of income, and loss of ability to care for loved ones over fucking politics. No one. That's why people like ramrouser who are celebrating it are complete shitstains on the asscrack of humanity.

I don't care what someone's politics are. The overwhelming vast majority of people on both sides of the political/ideological spectrum are just regular human beings trying to make it. They're regular human beings with families and loved ones and mortgages and bills and hopes and goals and dreams and fears and worries and doubts. Nobody deserves to have their livelihood stripped away because a bunch of cocksuckers in Washington DC think it's funny to be cruel.

Agree on the general, blanket wish. There are some individuals that I would not be sad if they lost a lot.
 
Back
Top