People who work from home all the time ‘cut emissions by 54%’ against those in office
Study in US shows one day a week of remote working cuts emissions by just 2% but two or four days lowers them by up to 29%
您正在查看单个对话串。
WFH allowance should be mandated -- anyone that wants it for a job where it's possible must be allowed it. it's such a dramatic quality of life difference.
I'm privileged to have a boss not caring where we work from, but i prefer to come into the office once in a while because of my social needs. It's depressing to stay home day after day, but it's more productive.
That's great when it's your choice. The issue is when bosses don't give people the choice.
My boss allows people to WFH officially, but also establishes several small office spaces so people can come to hang out if they feel lonely, or want to get to know their colleagues more. I think this is the best of both world.
for literally no cost too. What exactly are companies losing with WFH? Literaly nothing.
Control. And that is a scary thing to lose if you're a bad manager.
Then hire better managers
Idk how legit it is, but I have read that companies got deals on taxes and such for building their office in the specific city/state and that's with the expectation that the workers will either live in the city or will be from the city, in turn creating tax income from those workers buying things in the city. Basically because wfh employees also move to cheaper cities the companies are losing their benefits
The money they spend on the building and maintenance.
They don't lose that they gain that because they no longer have to pay for a building.
The companies that lose out are the ones that decide to do this stupid hybrid system which is literally the worst of both worlds. The company has a building that they have to pay upkeep on, while also having the IT costs of managing a off-site VPN.
Twenty year leases are hard to get out of.
As someone who works at a company that's permanently hybrid I have to disagree. We now literally have more employees at our corporate office than we have desks, and because all of our employees are 60-90% remote we can pull talent from a larger distance while still being able to have in-person meetings and in-person power sessions for large projects. But by continuing to have an office we have a central location for shipping and receiving, a secure and static space for meeting, working on projects and training plus core infrastructure and roles that don't work well remotely can still be on premises. Its literally the best of both worlds.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against WFH, just providing possible reasons big companies are against it.
They don't lose that they gain that because they no longer have to pay for a building.
That only applies to companies that rent. If they own the building, then an empty office becomes a waste
The companies that lose out are the ones that decide to do this stupid hybrid system which is literally the worst of both worlds.
I disagree on that one. Not everyone wants to WFH or do it full time. Also if they meet with outside persons regularly, like customers and want to do it in person, having an office is useful. Obviously this does not apply to all companies, but it's wrong to say that the hybrid system is the worst.
And how would they not lose that if people were working in the office?
