News

Jesus Christ these chucklefucks really want people to break out the guillotines, don’t they? They’re practically begging for it.

Hard to disagree

CEOs probably felt useless during COVID and realized the company doesn’t need them, so they want to exercise their power to necessitate their position.

Sort of like how some celebrities couldn’t cope with COVID because everybody was doing their own thing and paparazzi couldn’t report on them as much.

A few things to remember here:

CEOs aren't daft, they will respond to manipulate the survey results to show what they want it to show. Through no fault by the survey this is likely not what CEOs really think.

Stated preference surveys are often undertaken to support investment decisions, but it is well known that 'stated preference' and 'realised preference' are often different things.

...also for many jobs better candidates will seek out more flexible employers. These same better team members will also more on if there is any suggestion they are being unfavorably treated due to flexible working arrangements. My point is, for many (not all) the employment market will force employers to accept more remote working than happened before the pandemic. There was a trend in this direction even before the pandemic, there is a perspective to say COVID was a catalyst for more remote working, and the return will never be complete.

At this point not being in a union is dangerous

My union put remote-first language into the contract.

It's awesome.

It's ACTUALLY a very obvious power exercise.

You either get filtered out via said "layoff" or wanting to quit, or you're desperate enough to work for much, much less.

In the balance of flow of power, the workers were getting too much, so the people in power plus stock market are "abstracting" that whip crack.

They will remain in power unless a unified front is achieved. Now that I think about this explicitly, I think the solution is actually unionization. Weirdly.

Just imagine this exact same thing, but imagine if it were factory workers instead: the workers start being happy and comfortable, then a worldwide event makes some really obvious breakthrough that their lives should be even better, and they start ACTUALLY demanding 50% more money, which means your labor is now 90% of your cost rather than 60% - WHERE'S THAT MONEY GONNA COME FROM?? The CEO's pocket? Not if they can help it. And, there's pressure from above that 60% labor was already too much, and to get it to 55% by the end of the year because the stock market and the board demand it. So, you need to put those workers in their place; it's not about one single thing, but your CEO groupchat says that if you claim this and that, and make the workers unhappy again, unify your CEO friends' front and lay people off, they'll be desperate and submissive again.

It's literally a buyout from above. The CEOs are like the bigger business, making it shitty for everybody, but knowing they can afford to weather it better than the workers, and that it'll result in a swing of power.

And... They're right.

What do you even do about this? You either organize militaristically and take on a TON of risks, or submit like the greedy, selfish, rat-scab coward you know you are. And that's what we're all gonna do until a leader appears, myself included.

I don't like it, but I see it for what it is. Widespread ignorance and misplaced ire are against us. This is the American way.

Nah, if they want to link pay to attendance then they should pound sand.

The only thing they should be linking pay to is whether the work gets done well. The rest is irrelevant busybodying.

lmao, employers think they have the power until they lose talent. Trust me, the brain drain for any company requiring attendance will be immense.