12 ms·

Yeah, but is working from home really a 'right' akin to 8 hour day or a 'perk' similar to office dinners or sabbaticals or corporate Christmas parties?

cblconfederate 5y ago
Yes it is, as it enables whole classes of people who have the ability to join the workforce, e.g. disabled people, or busy mothers , or people who simply can't move to the bay area . Those perks you talk about are not an option for the vaast majority of workers outside a few cities aroudn the globe
- blowski 5y ago
  It also excludes (to some degree) those who cannot afford a dedicated, quiet office with fast internet at home.
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    theoretically, "cannot afford" is impossible when remote work is abundant. After all what confines people to that tiny apartment was the physical requirements of their (or their parents') workplace. It certanily doesnt exclude anyone, it slightly inconveniences them, in return for greatly improving the lives of many more.
    - blowski 5y ago
      I have to say, while you're trying to be inclusive, your comment comes across as exclusive to the specific lifestyle of a career like a young, unattached software developer. There are a lot of reasons why someone might not be able to move wherever they like. For example, they don't want to leave the area where they grew up, where all their friends and family live, and their kids go to school. Or where their partner can't move because they work somewhere like a hospital. As for "slightly inconveniences"... maybe for some it's nothing more than that, but for many people it's been an absolute nightmare. I admire your desire to make work more inclusive, but the irony is that working from home tends to benefit wealthy, educated individuals in highly-paid specialist jobs. We need a lot of other changes if we're to have mass remote working without a huge increase of economic inequality.
      - cblconfederate 5y ago
        i think that's trivializing the word "exclusion". Choosing the bohemian urbanite lifestyle is an incredibly luxurious choice compared to the reality of a disabled person, a parent who wants to care for their kids or a person caring for elderly parents somewhere in eastern europe. For the cases you 're talking about , remote work will always be beneficial: if there are no more "central business districts", real estate prices will fall precipitously. I also don't see how remote work will lead to anything but reduction of economic inequality. For example , blue collar work will remain the same, it will just be distributed in wide areas instead of cramped city centers, allowing workers to rent more cheaply. On the other end , highly paid jobs like doctors cannot become remote.
        blowski 5y ago
        Your comment makes it sound like everyone who lives in a city is a hipster quaffing expensive coffees and wearing silly t-shirts, doing social media influencing. Those are exactly the kind of people who will benefit from remote working. I'm talking about cleaners, administrators, callcentre workers, fast food staff, delivery drivers, supermarket shelf stackers, etc, living in a small flat in an unfashionable neighbourhood. They suffer very much from social exclusion, and handwavy arguments about how everything will just work itself out sounds naive and silly.
        cblconfederate 5y ago
        I m confused, you said i was excluding unattached sw devs, but now you say that these are the people who will benefit most. I also don't understand how RW will affect non-remote blue collar workers in any negative way
        blowski 5y ago
        Right, I see my comment before was a bit confusing. I'll rephrase. For a software dev (especially those with a few years of experience), work tends to be easy to come by. We pick up our laptop, tether to our mobile phone, whack out a few CVs and offers come flooding in. If you're unattached (single, no dependents) you can work from wherever you like - you write some code, push it to Git, and deploy to a server. But most people's jobs and lives don't look like that. They are rooted by partners, children or elderly relatives. By jobs that require you to be there in physical form. By personalities that struggle with an immense amount of change. By pay structures and pensions that reward longevity. To your last point, about how it remote working will have a negative effect on blue collar workers: 1. If remote-working is a human right, then it must be granted to ALL workers - regardless of the shade of their collar. I'm extremely sceptical that work requiring a physical presence will see a huge boost in wages. Thus, it risks merely be a perk offered to those already well compensated. 2. Since remote-working tends to benefit who already have large houses, fast internet, good technology, and good networks, it entrenches their position. If you currently earn minimum wage serving burgers in McDonalds, and can't afford a good laptop and internet connection, you will find it hard to even get on the ladder where remote-working is a norm. Thus it will most likely reduce social mobility.
- JackPoach 5y ago
  How is it different from current situation, where there are a ton of open vacancies for remote work already available on the market. I.e. why does it have to be the right? Here's my argument - stop thinking of yourself as an employee. Instead, think of yourself as someone who buys the service. Think of a service that can be done either remotely or in person, but you STRONGLY prefer it to be in office/on-premises. For instance, psychotherapy can be done via Zoom, but you really want it to be in person. Or yoga class - you can do it in home via Zoom or Youtube, but you prefer the gym. Or classes. Or whatever, but think of something that you want to pay for and for you it has to be in person, even though it can be done remotely as well. Now, think of a mechanism that guarantees that you can buy this service in person in a marketplace where every person has the right to work from home or not. Wouldn't companies have to create multiple vacancies and some vacancies would be 'work from work only' and some would be flexible? I see no other way. You can't be one sided and think only about employees or only about employers. You have to think about consumers too. After all, we are typically all three - we are hired from some jobs, we hire for others and we surely consume a lot in addition to producing something.
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    > there are a ton of open vacancies for remote work already available Well no, there were actually very few pre-covid. For example it s very hard for a disabled person to be a lecturer, despite tons of them being great researchers, and i have seen it this year with my disabled friend who had an explosion of opportunities to present her work in conferences, since every one of them became virtual. On-premise work will become work at a premium. Want a real psychotherapist, fine but it will cost more. On the other hand, virtual will be cheaper. The rest is market re-balancing. I m not arguing that remote work should be mandatory everywhere, but in certain domains where it's easy and feasible, yes, legislation could push for more adoption.
    - JackPoach 5y ago
      Sure, there were, but things changed. Can you tell me how you see this 'right' realistically being implemented in the public sector, which is the largest employer in the western world (government, agencies, schools, universities, military, hospitals, non-profits). I have two school children which were taught by Zoom and it was a disaster. As a taxpayer, I want my children to be taught IN PERSON in real classroom - because the results are much better. Pandemic - fine, we'll stick to Zoom, but if there's no threat, real classroom. Let's say you make it a 'right' so every teacher can choose how to teach. Suppose most teachers opt to teach remotely, while most parents choose in person in classroom education. What then? Your only option either to force those teachers who what to work remotely only to work from school OR hire new teachers, clearly stating that they will have to work from the class room. So basically, you don't solve anything. Same with most other public work - let's take police. Yeah, if you are a beat cop, you've got to pound the streets. But you are a detective. Can't you say that you want to talk to witnesses and suspects from your home via Zoom? Sure witnesses might chose to visit the station, but you don't want to do interrogation in person, because you think that it can be done just as effectively from home. Or hospitals. The more you think about it (at least in my case) the less idea of 'remote work right' makes sense. Option - yes, right - no. It simply makes things worse, not better. If you don't understand it, try flipping the situation around. Try justifying 'the right to work from office' for a person like me (which is not totally true - I can work both from home or office, I just prefer office for social reasons). Let's say I get hired by Basecamp, which is remote only with no office. I then claim that 'work from office' is my right because whatever. It's just a type of spoiled entitled brat that am. Now Basecamp or any other fully remote company is forced to rent an office just for me and maybe a few others who also share inclination to work from the office. Meanwhile, there are a ton of 'office vacancies' out there that I could have easily applied to given my background. How is it fair to Basecamp?

cblconfederate 5y ago

Yes it is, as it enables whole classes of people who have the ability to join the workforce, e.g. disabled people, or busy mothers , or people who simply can't move to the bay area . Those perks you talk about are not an option for the vaast majority of workers outside a few cities aroudn the globe

blowski 5y ago
It also excludes (to some degree) those who cannot afford a dedicated, quiet office with fast internet at home.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  theoretically, "cannot afford" is impossible when remote work is abundant. After all what confines people to that tiny apartment was the physical requirements of their (or their parents') workplace. It certanily doesnt exclude anyone, it slightly inconveniences them, in return for greatly improving the lives of many more.
  - blowski 5y ago
    I have to say, while you're trying to be inclusive, your comment comes across as exclusive to the specific lifestyle of a career like a young, unattached software developer. There are a lot of reasons why someone might not be able to move wherever they like. For example, they don't want to leave the area where they grew up, where all their friends and family live, and their kids go to school. Or where their partner can't move because they work somewhere like a hospital. As for "slightly inconveniences"... maybe for some it's nothing more than that, but for many people it's been an absolute nightmare. I admire your desire to make work more inclusive, but the irony is that working from home tends to benefit wealthy, educated individuals in highly-paid specialist jobs. We need a lot of other changes if we're to have mass remote working without a huge increase of economic inequality.
    - cblconfederate 5y ago
      i think that's trivializing the word "exclusion". Choosing the bohemian urbanite lifestyle is an incredibly luxurious choice compared to the reality of a disabled person, a parent who wants to care for their kids or a person caring for elderly parents somewhere in eastern europe. For the cases you 're talking about , remote work will always be beneficial: if there are no more "central business districts", real estate prices will fall precipitously. I also don't see how remote work will lead to anything but reduction of economic inequality. For example , blue collar work will remain the same, it will just be distributed in wide areas instead of cramped city centers, allowing workers to rent more cheaply. On the other end , highly paid jobs like doctors cannot become remote.
      - blowski 5y ago
        Your comment makes it sound like everyone who lives in a city is a hipster quaffing expensive coffees and wearing silly t-shirts, doing social media influencing. Those are exactly the kind of people who will benefit from remote working. I'm talking about cleaners, administrators, callcentre workers, fast food staff, delivery drivers, supermarket shelf stackers, etc, living in a small flat in an unfashionable neighbourhood. They suffer very much from social exclusion, and handwavy arguments about how everything will just work itself out sounds naive and silly.
        cblconfederate 5y ago
        I m confused, you said i was excluding unattached sw devs, but now you say that these are the people who will benefit most. I also don't understand how RW will affect non-remote blue collar workers in any negative way
        blowski 5y ago
        Right, I see my comment before was a bit confusing. I'll rephrase. For a software dev (especially those with a few years of experience), work tends to be easy to come by. We pick up our laptop, tether to our mobile phone, whack out a few CVs and offers come flooding in. If you're unattached (single, no dependents) you can work from wherever you like - you write some code, push it to Git, and deploy to a server. But most people's jobs and lives don't look like that. They are rooted by partners, children or elderly relatives. By jobs that require you to be there in physical form. By personalities that struggle with an immense amount of change. By pay structures and pensions that reward longevity. To your last point, about how it remote working will have a negative effect on blue collar workers: 1. If remote-working is a human right, then it must be granted to ALL workers - regardless of the shade of their collar. I'm extremely sceptical that work requiring a physical presence will see a huge boost in wages. Thus, it risks merely be a perk offered to those already well compensated. 2. Since remote-working tends to benefit who already have large houses, fast internet, good technology, and good networks, it entrenches their position. If you currently earn minimum wage serving burgers in McDonalds, and can't afford a good laptop and internet connection, you will find it hard to even get on the ladder where remote-working is a norm. Thus it will most likely reduce social mobility.
JackPoach 5y ago
How is it different from current situation, where there are a ton of open vacancies for remote work already available on the market. I.e. why does it have to be the right? Here's my argument - stop thinking of yourself as an employee. Instead, think of yourself as someone who buys the service. Think of a service that can be done either remotely or in person, but you STRONGLY prefer it to be in office/on-premises. For instance, psychotherapy can be done via Zoom, but you really want it to be in person. Or yoga class - you can do it in home via Zoom or Youtube, but you prefer the gym. Or classes. Or whatever, but think of something that you want to pay for and for you it has to be in person, even though it can be done remotely as well. Now, think of a mechanism that guarantees that you can buy this service in person in a marketplace where every person has the right to work from home or not. Wouldn't companies have to create multiple vacancies and some vacancies would be 'work from work only' and some would be flexible? I see no other way. You can't be one sided and think only about employees or only about employers. You have to think about consumers too. After all, we are typically all three - we are hired from some jobs, we hire for others and we surely consume a lot in addition to producing something.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  > there are a ton of open vacancies for remote work already available Well no, there were actually very few pre-covid. For example it s very hard for a disabled person to be a lecturer, despite tons of them being great researchers, and i have seen it this year with my disabled friend who had an explosion of opportunities to present her work in conferences, since every one of them became virtual. On-premise work will become work at a premium. Want a real psychotherapist, fine but it will cost more. On the other hand, virtual will be cheaper. The rest is market re-balancing. I m not arguing that remote work should be mandatory everywhere, but in certain domains where it's easy and feasible, yes, legislation could push for more adoption.
  - JackPoach 5y ago
    Sure, there were, but things changed. Can you tell me how you see this 'right' realistically being implemented in the public sector, which is the largest employer in the western world (government, agencies, schools, universities, military, hospitals, non-profits). I have two school children which were taught by Zoom and it was a disaster. As a taxpayer, I want my children to be taught IN PERSON in real classroom - because the results are much better. Pandemic - fine, we'll stick to Zoom, but if there's no threat, real classroom. Let's say you make it a 'right' so every teacher can choose how to teach. Suppose most teachers opt to teach remotely, while most parents choose in person in classroom education. What then? Your only option either to force those teachers who what to work remotely only to work from school OR hire new teachers, clearly stating that they will have to work from the class room. So basically, you don't solve anything. Same with most other public work - let's take police. Yeah, if you are a beat cop, you've got to pound the streets. But you are a detective. Can't you say that you want to talk to witnesses and suspects from your home via Zoom? Sure witnesses might chose to visit the station, but you don't want to do interrogation in person, because you think that it can be done just as effectively from home. Or hospitals. The more you think about it (at least in my case) the less idea of 'remote work right' makes sense. Option - yes, right - no. It simply makes things worse, not better. If you don't understand it, try flipping the situation around. Try justifying 'the right to work from office' for a person like me (which is not totally true - I can work both from home or office, I just prefer office for social reasons). Let's say I get hired by Basecamp, which is remote only with no office. I then claim that 'work from office' is my right because whatever. It's just a type of spoiled entitled brat that am. Now Basecamp or any other fully remote company is forced to rent an office just for me and maybe a few others who also share inclination to work from the office. Meanwhile, there are a ton of 'office vacancies' out there that I could have easily applied to given my background. How is it fair to Basecamp?