Silicon Valley Tech Workers Angered By Proposal to Make Some Mandatory Telecommuting Permanent (nbcnews.com) 230
"The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a regional government agency in the San Francisco Bay Area, voted Wednesday to move forward with a proposal to require people at large, office-based companies to work from home three days a week as a way to slash greenhouse gas emissions from car commutes," reports NBC News:
It's a radical suggestion that likely would have been a non-starter before Covid-19 shuttered many offices in March, but now that corporate employees have gotten a taste of not commuting, transportation planners think the idea has wider appeal. "There is an opportunity to do things that could not have been done in the past," said Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, a member of the transportation commission who supports the proposal. She said she felt "very strongly" that a telecommuting mandate ought to be a part of the region's future...
Some of the nation's largest companies are headquartered in the Bay Area, including not only tech giants Apple, Facebook, Google, Intel and Netflix, but Chevron, Levi Strauss and Wells Fargo... The idea of a mandate was a surprise to residents, many of whom first learned of the idea this week from social media and then flooded an online meeting of the transportation agency Wednesday to try, unsuccessfully, to talk commissioners out of the idea. "We do not want to continue this as a lifestyle," Steven Buss, a Google software engineer who lives in San Francisco, told the commission. "We are all sacrificing now to reduce the spread of the virus, but no one is enjoying working from home," he said. "It's probably fine if you own a big house out in the suburbs and you're nearing retirement, but for young workers like me who live in crowded conditions, working from home is terrible."
Many callers pointed out that the situation exacerbates inequality because only some types of work can be done from home. Others worried about the ripple effects on lunch spots, transit agencies and other businesses and organizations that rely on revenue from office workers. Still other residents said that if car emissions are the problem, the commission should focus on cars, not all commutes... Dustin Moskovitz, a cofounder of Facebook who usually keeps a low public profile, mocked the idea as an indictment of the Bay Area's general failure to plan for growth. "We tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas," Moskovitz, now CEO of software company Asana, tweeted Tuesday.
The mandate would apply to "large, office-based employers" and require them to have at least 60 percent of their employees telecommute on any given workday. They could meet the requirement through flexible schedules, compressed work weeks or other alternatives.
Some of the nation's largest companies are headquartered in the Bay Area, including not only tech giants Apple, Facebook, Google, Intel and Netflix, but Chevron, Levi Strauss and Wells Fargo... The idea of a mandate was a surprise to residents, many of whom first learned of the idea this week from social media and then flooded an online meeting of the transportation agency Wednesday to try, unsuccessfully, to talk commissioners out of the idea. "We do not want to continue this as a lifestyle," Steven Buss, a Google software engineer who lives in San Francisco, told the commission. "We are all sacrificing now to reduce the spread of the virus, but no one is enjoying working from home," he said. "It's probably fine if you own a big house out in the suburbs and you're nearing retirement, but for young workers like me who live in crowded conditions, working from home is terrible."
Many callers pointed out that the situation exacerbates inequality because only some types of work can be done from home. Others worried about the ripple effects on lunch spots, transit agencies and other businesses and organizations that rely on revenue from office workers. Still other residents said that if car emissions are the problem, the commission should focus on cars, not all commutes... Dustin Moskovitz, a cofounder of Facebook who usually keeps a low public profile, mocked the idea as an indictment of the Bay Area's general failure to plan for growth. "We tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas," Moskovitz, now CEO of software company Asana, tweeted Tuesday.
The mandate would apply to "large, office-based employers" and require them to have at least 60 percent of their employees telecommute on any given workday. They could meet the requirement through flexible schedules, compressed work weeks or other alternatives.
Move to Austin Texas (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Move to Austin Texas (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, I thought Silicon Valley companies were supposed to be at the cutting edge of this kind of shit, or is it just the the MBAs in charge of Amazon, Apple, Google, et al are now bricking themselves because they've spend so much money on vast, showpiece HQs that they now have no chance of seeing any realistic RoI on?
Re:Move to Austin Texas (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What everyone is really pissed about is that they just spent three quarters of a million on a three bedroom, 1,500 square foot dump to be within commuting distance of their company site when they can now go find a 2,500 sq ft home on 2 acres for half that 100 miles away.
Re: Move to Austin Texas (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well the rule is 60% on any given day, this could mean 100% home working for some and 0% home working for others.
If you fall into the 100% home working category, then you can move somewhere cheaper and likely have a much better home for the same cost.
Re: Move to Austin Texas (Score:2)
What rural area do you live in with decent broadband
in Xanadu, a stately pleasure dome (Score:2)
rosebud
Re:Move to Austin Texas (Score:5, Interesting)
Middle management wants the grunts toiling in the office where they can walk around with their coffee mug and make sure everyone's working. After all once you get metrics and performance tracking worked out, what do they need that middle manager for?
Re: Move to Austin Texas (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't California, this is a single transportation district in a very progressive city. As a Californian and as an American, its offensive to restrict my freedom of movement with in public spaces due to greenhouse gas emissions generally. Its not reasonable to equate greenhouse gas emissions with a pandemic disease. These idiots don't seem to understand the elements that have made San Francisco and surrounding areas what they are today - lockdowns were certainly not one of those elements. They are a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking more about technologic progress. I think the concentration of like-minded people makes a difference. Change that concentration and you change the outcome.
Re: (Score:3)
Conservatives love telling people what to do just as much as liberals. They just have different things that they like to be authoritarian about.
The right thing to do is to elect people who aren't authoritarian. The problem, of course, is that people who don't want to tell other people what to do have no interest in being political leaders, so they don't run for office.
There's probably only one way to solve this: using random selection to choose who will run for each office, rather than letting it be a se
Re:Move to Austin Texas (Score:4, Interesting)
If each division led by a middle manager had its own office somewhere different from all/most of the other divisions, the manager would get his/her wish.
I actually came here to suggest that if each such division had its own office post-covid, possibly distant from other divisions' offices, then the worst problem with zooming would be solved: it's much harder IMO to do brainstorming online than in person.
In my own work, we have had a number of brainstorming sessions to talk about proposals we're writing, and so forth. I *really* miss the whiteboard: and haven't found a good substitute--sharing my screen and writing s.t. as we go along is not a full substitute, since only I can write on it, and I can't easily scribble diagrams. Maybe if I had a tablet and a pencil-like thing the latter would be doable, but it's still one person using the "board." (Oops, I see there actually is such a white-board like app useable by multiple zoom participants: https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-... [support.zoom.us]. I'll have to try it out.)
Other disadvantages of zooming are the tendency to talk over each other--zoom seems to have enough latency that two people can each start talking over each other repeatedly (and not maliciously).
And if it's a small meeting, you can see everyone else's faces, but again there's latency, and you can easily miss--or can't give--subtle body language cues. For instance, in f2f meetings I've led, if I'm at the whiteboard, it's as if I'm the only one to talk; so I sit down to encourage others to speak up. I don't think there's an analogous cue in zoom, short of calling on someone (which again gives the wrong impression).
In sum: I think if a small department had (post-covid) its own office, separate from the larger company's other offices, at least some of the disadvantages of dispersed working would go away.
Re:Move to Austin Texas (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Leave it up to the employees that understand their own home situation. If you live in an apartment in SF with a bunch of roommates then having all of those people working from home could be a crappy office situation. Maybe you chose that apartment situation to avoid a commute, maybe you walk from the apartment. This legislation calls out groups or individuals for unequal treatment, how is that right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...Seriously, I thought Silicon Valley companies were supposed to be at the cutting edge of this kind of shit, or is it just the the MBAs in charge of Amazon, Apple, Google, et al are now bricking themselves because they've spend so much money on vast, showpiece HQs that they now have no chance of seeing any realistic RoI on?
Since when are trillion-dollar companies, worried about ROI on a fucking building?
Apple proved that. They didn't construct a building. They built an art piece, and didn't give a shit about the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with your perspective, that Apple building is a perfect example of what a good, smart office campus should be. Instead of a corporate park like you see in Redmond with many, many buildings that people have to drive around and find multiple parking spots per day just to meet up in person. And good luck finding parking in all of those places every day. The enclosed court yard works far better than having 30 of those too.
You drove all that way through the forest, and managed to not see a single tree.
We're here addressing pollution caused by commuting. The shape of the parking lot(s) or buildings has as much to do with that as the color of your car you're still polluting with.
...drive around and find multiple parking spots per day just to meet up in person.
This, coming from the company that invented Teams.
Fucking hell. We'll never learn.
Re:Move to Austin Texas (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems possible that this proposal is more about changing how we work and look at work than it is about environmentalism: an awful lot of people, including here on Slashdot, have responded very positively to pandemic-induced telecommuting, and are afraid of a return to the old way once it's over. This may be one of those things, like safety standards and overtime pay, that the free market is incapable of providing. The environmental angle, in that case, is simply an excuse. It's a quantitative measurable benefit, which doesn't require subjective arguments about quality of life.
Of course, that this would be a mandatory 60% of the workforce seems excessive, but that would likely get nuanced around if this ended up gaining traction.
Re: (Score:3)
an awful lot of people, including here on Slashdot, have responded very positively to pandemic-induced telecommuting
It's the very shiny silver lining in an otherwise very dark grey cloud.
How does it work in London (Score:5, Informative)
Quite obviously the first group is much less happy to work from home than the second. If there is a rule that only 40% of employees are allowed in the office at any point in time, then I'm personally quite happy to stay away to give others the chance to work at the office, because I'm in the second group. And some people in the first group would probably be willing to move further away as well.
Re:How does it work in London (Score:4, Interesting)
Less work in London might be a good thing. The UK economy is dangerously centralised upon Mega City One. Much of the South East is just a giant commuter belt for London. It's created a severe imbalance in housing costs - you can buy an entire three-bedroom house Up North for what it costs for a single-bedroom flat in Kent, or just the deposit on a large cupboard in London. If all the office workers in London were working from home part of the time, it would let pricing even out a bit - bringing down the ridiculous living costs of London, and promoting more business growth further away in the country.
Re: (Score:2)
London is entering a period of rapid decline. Brexit and the virus are really taking a toll.
Re: (Score:2)
London is entering a period of rapid decline. Brexit and the virus are really taking a toll.
I think rumours of it's death are greatly exaggerated. On the other hand, the Tories want to damage London. It's not like London puts in many conservative seats so they feel anything they can do to damage the Labour base is fair game.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not cities like London that are a concern, it's cities like, say, Houston. Wandering around downtown London, Barcelona, Paris, Portland, New York, Florence, New Orleans etc. after dark (admittedly pre covid) was about nightlife, entertainment, dining, drinking socializing etc. Wandering around Houston downtown after dark is about the wind blowing around old newspapers.
Cities that have something more to offer than just office work will still thrive and will still need a lot of workers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite obviously the first group is much less happy to work from home than the second.
Based on? The commuting distance is only a small part of the large equation that is working from home. Heck I just look to our own house. Both myself and my partner are only 15min from work (by bicycle, 10min by car). She hated working from home, I love it. Yet the home and the distance to work is common to us.
Don't distill a complex concept with many variables and deeply personal motivations into a simple "depends where you live" answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Working in London, you have two choices: You live close to work, that is inside London, where you pay lots of rent for a tiny flat or are forced to share a flat, but you have an easy compute, and you are close to all the action in London. Or you live outside London, where you can get a nice home that is affordable, but pay lots both in time and money to commute to work. Quite obviously the first group is much less happy to work from home than the second.
Break it down with this new law.
20-minute commute from "cool hip" location in town x 2 days a week gives you a closet of an apartment that you get to try and enjoy the other 2/3s of your life.
Hour-long commute from "boring" location out of town x 2 days a week gives you an affordable spacious home that you get to actually enjoy the other 2/3s of your life.
We don't even have to grow old anymore to understand that life, is far more valuable in this equation. To each their own though.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, it's better off for commute than most of the US. It's possible in many parts of Europe to live in a village of 100 and still take the train in to work in a large city. But in Silicon Valley, the mass transit options are terrible. Transit was all set up to go to San Francisco, but then it turned out to not be the center of the Bay Area universe. The rich (and probably republican leaning) Menlo Park refused to let BART go through their town, or to have a bypass road to connect the freeways, so it'
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, everyone can get a car, everyone can but the cheap gas, and everyone expects to drive to work. About the only thing that limits this is the free market forces and the
Who are they representing? (Score:2)
When I see stuff like this, whether or not I think it's a good idea, I can't help but ask, just who are these politicians representing? Do the majority of their constituents really want this to happen?
Re: (Score:2)
In San Francisco? Quite possibly.
Unconstitutional never stopped petty tyrants. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The people can still assemble if they want to. They just won't get paid for it.
Ludicrous textual surgery (Score:3)
A text without a context is a pretext. By removing the following "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" you're trying to make that mean something completely different to its actual meaning. If you're going to twist your constitution like that, you might as well claim that it's a first amendment right to work in fiddly mechanical manufacture, viz assembly.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, the phrase before that (Score:2)
If you want to keep going backward, the words before that are freedom of the press. Are you suggesting that the first amendment only allows the press to assemble for the purpose of petitioning the government? For religious reasons, I guess?
I think the command in the list mean something.
I think the list, divided by commas, protects a) freedom of religion, b) freedom of the press, c) right of assembly, d) right of petition, each separately. I don't think it just means the press has a religious right to ass
Re: (Score:3)
Not exactly. But in context it's about preventing Congress from banning meetings in order to avoid the formulation and spread of political ideas, in the way that IIRC the Spanish Empire tried to ban book clubs because they were serving to discuss the revolutionary ideas coming out of France. It's nothing to do with working conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
So we agree it's a list, distinct things separated by commas.
It's not saying that the press has a religious freedom to assemble to petition the government. Freedom of the press is separate from freedom of assembly is separate from freedom of religion is separate from right of petition. Cool, we're getting somewhere.
At least I think that's what you're saying because you said as example is they can't ban assembly because ideas can be expressed. Specifically, ideas of revolution, you said - which is kinda t
Re: (Score:2)
People interpret the constitution the same way they interpret the Bible. Use your own preconceived ideas as the goal and then pick and choose the words to defend your goal; and if anyone disagrees with you then accuse them of being a commie or heretic.
Re: (Score:2)
Say what? (Score:4, Funny)
You whiny little shits.
You would rather work in some cube than at home? How fucking small is your home? A doghouse in someone's backyard and sharing it with the dog?
"Waaaahhh! Why do I have to commute into work when I can do everything remotely?!"
"Wait, what...I'll have to? It's mandatory? Waaaahhhhh, it's unfair to me because people with big houses in the suburbs have it easier!"
There are pros and cons to working from home, but the reasoning of this "engineer" is just pathetic.
Re: (Score:3)
What I want to know is how the fuck a transportation commission has the power to control labour relations between companies and their employees...
Re: (Score:2)
They operate under the slogan, "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I view it more as a transition problem. People have purchased tiny cupboard homes in the city because they need to be near to their workplace, and the only places they can afford nearby are tiny due to the very high property values in cities. So if they are told to work from home, they are stuck spending more time in their tiny miserable home with an office squeezed in next to their bed. But now they work from home, they don't need to be near the office so much any more - a two-hour commute is perfectly fine if you are only doing it twice a week. New employees would know this, and buy homes accordingly out in the suburbs or in satellite towns.
The people are are suffering from this are the existing employees, who planned their lives years in advance around the idea of living near work. Now they are left with the choice of being cooped up in a home that isn't idea, or of moving out to somewhere more comfortable, which is itsself a difficult and expensive prospect. The people who actually own homes rather than rent are in an even worse position, as the reduced demand for homes in the city will cause property prices to fall, so if they do move out they still might not have the money to buy the home they want.
Even if the final state is appealing, the transition to get there might be terrible for a lot of people.
Re: (Score:2)
The people are are suffering from this are the existing employees, who planned their lives years in advance around the idea of living near work.
In other words, people who made poor life decisions.
Re: (Score:3)
Poor life decisions like avoiding energy sapping commutes, like having easy access to the cultural and artistic centres, like sacrificing home comfort to maximise their earning power, like deferring a family to progress their career?
Those choices may not have worked out but I think it's stretching to claim they're "poor life decisions".
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell you, if I had known I'd be working at home for 9+ months straight I would have done things differently. Maybe get a bigger house, one that is for both my personal needs plus the needs of work. But even without that, I would have liked a month or two to prepare; go shopping for a much larger desk or a second desk, so I can have room for personal and work computers and monitors, and get more power strips for sure, maybe upgrade the internet for all the heavy duty use its getting. Even a decent ta
Re: (Score:2)
How fucking small is your home?
Given it's silicon valley I'm going to guess that these people live in a cardboard box next to a Google fibre exchange.
Re: (Score:2)
It would help to have better employment laws so that the company has to pay for stuff like office furniture.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he does bring up an interesting point.
About 4 years ago, I started working remotely. I love where I live (close to the beach) but I wouldn't want to work from there because it's too small--I don't really have a space where I can work from. If I work from the living room, I get nothing done because I'm distracted by all the fun stuff in the living room. If I work from the bedroom, I don't sleep well. I've learned this from past history doing contract work.
Solution: Rent an office. Something close
Book about great workplaces (Score:2)
Actually I'm reminded of a book about great workplaces. One of the places featured was a google site, perhaps in Switzerland. MUCH nicer than any home I've ever lived in and I would much rather spend time there.
Can't say firsthand. Though some of my old coworkers became googlers, I've never been invited inside to see for myself. I think the local google HQ was moved recently from one palatial building to a newer one at a more convenient location.
Re: (Score:2)
You would rather work in some cube than at home? How fucking small is your home? A doghouse in someone's backyard and sharing it with the dog?
I mean, it is San Fransisco. It's quite possible that's about the size of it (literally and figuratively). Of course what they are not realizing is that they could move AWAY from SF If they are 100% work from home. Hell, even having to go in occasionally for meetings, it would be cheaper to fly back once or twice a month while living somewhere more reasonable. Doesn't even need to be that far away.
Wait wha? (Score:2)
Transportation board? Large office based companies? The same ones that have buses for their employees? Does not compute.
Yet again this seems like one of those moves designed do stoke sentiment against the thing it looks like it's for on the surface.
As for the dumbasses who wanted to work for evilcorp so bad they rented a literal closet for 2000/mo... I have no sympathy. And why should their foolishness decide it for everyone?
Re: (Score:2)
As for the dumbasses who wanted to work for evilcorp so bad they rented a literal closet for 2000/mo... I have no sympathy. And why should their foolishness decide it for everyone?
Everybody's foolishness is deciding something for somebody else. Live in a big house and have a long commute? Your foolishness is deciding the fate of the climate for everyone. Your foolishness is deciding clogged roads for everyone. Your foolishness is deciding unsafe travel for everyone who's not in a car. Let he who is not a dumbass who wrecks things for everybody else throw the first stone.
What next? Goulags? (Score:2, Insightful)
Good idea, but should be more narrowly targeted (Score:2)
It's a good idea, but it should be focused on cars, because people using public transportation are consuming far less resources, and producing far less pollution. So if people drive to a train station and take a train to work, or bus, that's vastly more efficient than if they all drive to work. Reducing the number of cars driving to offices doesn't just reduce pollution, it can free up some of the astounding 40% of city land that's consumed by cars (roads, parking) - think of how much better off cities coul
Working way harder at home; need a break (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a matter of experience... this has worked for quit some time now... Propose something that on the surface looks good and saves something or somebody (at least as far as everyone's gut tells them) and then make anyone feel bad who doesn't immediately hop on the hype-train.
Re:Jesus Fucking Christ. (Score:5, Insightful)
Errr..maybe they are sick and tired of pissing off hours of their day commuting and fucking up the environment to do so? The free market won't choose a decent environmental policy. The free market is reactionary. Only after we push the Earth over the edge will the free market put a price on it.
Re:Jesus Fucking Christ. (Score:5, Interesting)
Bingo. What people tend to forget about the free market is that it suffers the tragedy of commons. Free market solutions such as employees wanting to telecommute only works if there's competition offering telecommuting in the market place.
Now I'm not sure I necessarily agree with this mandate as the right way to do it, but you could look to Europe for examples. If you rank the countries by share of people who work from home and pick the top 5, they all have incentives in place for employers who provide the option.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
maybe they are sick and tired of pissing off hours of their day commuting and fucking up the environment to do so?
Judging from the article, I'd say no, at least some of the apparently are not.
Re:Jesus Fucking Christ. (Score:4, Insightful)
THEN MAYBE THEY SHOULD STOP DOING IT. But don't tell US to do it.
If you would do it on your own simply because it's a good idea, we wouldn't have to tell you. But since you're dedicated to not being us even if it kills you, you may have to be forced so that you don't drag us down the toilet. You're being resistant simply because that is part of your identity, not because it makes any sense. And it's your SOP, and it's damned tiresome.
Re: Jesus Fucking Christ. (Score:3)
You can have any color you choose as long as it's black?
Let freedom ring.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can have any future you want as long as it's feasible.
The problem is with the future you're actively working towards. You're not in it, nor am I.
Re: Jesus Fucking Christ. (Score:2)
It's not /feasible/ to have a life where busybodies don't constantly try to butt into your life and tell you what to do?
Hardly.
Re: (Score:3)
The battle cry of someone who just ran out of logical arguments.
Re: (Score:3)
THEN MAYBE THEY SHOULD STOP DOING IT. But don't tell US to do it. That is what is wrong with you fuckers: you want to force everyone else to do your harebrained schemes.
Ah, so they'll stop pissing in the stream, but you want to continue doing so. How's the water taste?
The law wants to try and curtail the greed that demands workers climb in a death trap and commute to a building every workday. Just because you have some fascination with pre-COVID traffic levels doesn't mean the rest of us want that fucking hairbrained scheme. IMHO, this law should have been enacted at the Federal level 20 years ago. The world would have a whole lot less pollution and micromanagers.
Small government solution (Score:5, Insightful)
The small government solution - so that you're not forcing anybody to do anything - is to stop maintaining the roads. You'll be saving taxpayer money, too. It's a win-win. ;-)
Or, if you want even more freedom, allow people to walk in the roads. I'd love to have that in my neighbourhood, where the biggest menace to everyone is cars, and the biggest restriction on freedom on our public land is not being allowed to walk on all the land that's reserved for cars.
You might think that what I'm saying is ridiculous, but that's only because you've gotten so used to your entitlements that you're not even able to see where you've been forcing other people to live the way that you want them to live.
Re: (Score:2)
I frequently agitate against the domination of society by freeways and highways, and even I don't think the answer is to stop maintaining the roads, at least most of them. The answer isn't even necessarily to stop building new roads. It's to stop expanding highways, and also to stop building new ones. Any new transportation links we add should not be based on the automobile. We have too many of them already, and even the very best ones (however you measure that) do not serve some segment of the population.
I
Re: (Score:2)
A stout WTF is clearly called for them someone brings up the elevated PRT. Good job using an acronym even google can't explain to make your case.
Re: (Score:3)
So when the public takes some land, decides it's going to be a park with a hiking trail and says no motorized vehicles, isn't that also a restriction on not being allowed to drive on land that's reserved for walking? Is that forcing others to live the way that you want them to live by prohibiting them from riding a dirt bike through it?
This shit doesn't make sense -- the public has the right to dedicate particular land to a particular modality of transport. I support having a balance of roads/transit/bike-l
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not surprised you've been moderated as troll, but you're absolutely right. The idea of the carrot being preferable to the stick and the law of unintended consequences are concepts that seem to consistently elude Democrats... not to mention that their schemes are usually poorly conceived. Regardless:
Here's some food for thought: If I, for some reason, were in this situation I'd find a cheap group flophouse (perhaps even the office!) for two nights per week to put in my face time days. I'd then shuttle
Re:Jesus Fucking Christ. (Score:4)
[If I] "were in this situation I'd find a cheap group flophouse (perhaps even the office!) for two nights per week":
I think you've put two bads together and come up with a good idea:
Bad 1: You want to live a long ways from your office, so the commute is long.
Bad 2: If everyone worked from home 3 days a week (and if those weren't necessarily the same days for everyone), then you have a lot of empty office space (assuming your company owns the building, or has a five year lease or s.t.).
Good idea: Turn some of the surplus office rooms into the equivalent of a hotel room. You come in for two successive days of work, but you stay overnight in the office/hotel room. So you only have a single commute each week.
Result: you won't mind much if that commute is long, because you only have to do it once a week. And traffic is reduced, because office workers are only commuting 1/5 as much.
I think I'll patent this idea...
Re: (Score:2)
You forget that the other party uses the Stick very often as well. You may not see it, not all segments of society are the same and what works for one might not for another. But there's a stick and it gets used to beat people who don't conform. The Republicans and Democrats alike use the carrot only when it benefits their own pockets and the stick when it doesn't affect them personally.
Re: (Score:2)
What the FUCK is wrong with these goddamned Democrats? These assholes have this harebrained notion that they're entitled to force the rest of us to do anything they think is a good idea.
-jcr
Well, at least they're not appointing a religious nutcase to the highest court in a land supposedly founded on the idea of keeping church and state separate. Not that she's going to try to force anyone to do anything she thinks is a good idea, of course.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, those gdodamned Democrats actually having some concern for the environment. What is wrong with them!
Fun fact: Al Gore's Climate Change jet, actually runs off 100% Grade-A hypocrisy.
Now shut the fuck up about who's more "green". No one is. Those who manufacture concern, are usually the worst offenders.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that no one is green? I think you've been drinking too much Exxon kool-aid, or you've just given up on trying.
Renewables have been proven time and time again to produce much more energy than the cost of manufacture, saving carbon emissions in the end. The only studies that seriously draw this into question are funded by the fossil fuel industry, and even then, their argument is that renewable sources yield less energy than we thought, not that they are a net carbon loser. As a society s
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that no one is green?...The 1% of conservatives are just as polluting as the 1% of progressives, if not more.
Gee, can't imagine how I came to that conclusion with you confirming it and all.
Also, if those who "manufacture concern" are often the worst offenders, why do I see people in huge black pickup trucks waving Confederate flags riding around town "rolling coal"...
Well, you've talked about the 1%, and the 0.1%. This would be the 0.000000001%. And yes, the hypocrites manufacturing concern who fly private planes and drive around with a fucking fleet of cars and bodyguards, create a hell of a lot more pollution than the Rolling Coal Redneck Gang.
The only valid argument you might have is that people who make a lot of money end up polluting more, because the products and services they buy ultimately require fossil fuels to provide. While that's true, by numbers only a tiny percentage of environmentalists are rich.
That "tiny percentage" of environmentalists also happen to run tens of thousands of companies. You can stop being dismissive now of their overall
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, those gdodamned Democrats actually having some concern for the environment. What is wrong with them!
Simply being "concerned" makes no difference and means nothing. Real world impact of action is the ONLY relevant metric.
It is clear in California "for the environment" has become a pretext for leveraging power same as "for the children" with same corrupting effects on those who wield it.
Its telling California chooses to spend peanuts on energy related R&D when technology is the ONLY acceptable (to enough people to matter) mechanism to make any useful impact at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...for these young employees to think about getting married and settling down ? Or is the "brogrammer" lifestyle so well suited for their persons ?
I love how you assume "brogrammers" can just whip out a keyboard and compile a spouse, as if the single life is the "well suited" choice the majority are coding for.
And when technically inclined men who make a good living take a look at divorce rates and especially how unbalanced divorce court can financially go for them, go figure a lot of them have gone MGTOW.
Re: Maybe it is time... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this whole "grow up and get married & have kids" thing society is still fixated on is just some obsolite social pressure that dates back to when America was a much poorer and mostly agricultural country, and the mortality rate was much higher.
Who cares if so and so gets married or not? This and other outdated cruft needs to be cleaned out of the American mindset.
Re:Maybe it is time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Marriage is not the purpose of life. You marry if you want to, but don't look down on other people just because they can be happy without sticking to the rigid track of tradition.
Re: (Score:3)
These days, marriage is pretty much a trap. I am thinking it basically was always that way: Tie people close together and they deal with each other and their issues most of the time, and they are suddenly far easier to control.
Re:The entertainment value (Score:5, Insightful)
You want the workers to be loyal to the company, but why would they do that when the company is not loyal to the workers? The days when a person could enter a company on the ground floor and expect to work their way up the ranks over a career are long gone now - such people are notable because they are so unusual. The relationship between an employer and employee is purely transaction now: Money for labor, and that transaction can be ended as soon as either party feels they are no longer benefiting. Usually by the employer, as it's easier for a company to find a new employee than for an individual to find a new job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The days when a person could enter a company on the ground floor and expect to work their way up the ranks over a career are long gone now
Maybe in your area or your industry, but that is still very much the norm at most larger companies. Sure working a some crappy startup or some hip tech company run by millennials it won't be the case. But if the company was around when you were born and you studies something which was also a degree when your father went to university there are still "25-to-life" career opportunities out there.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on the other side of the country and I must say from this distance the entertainment value of hyper-liberal California is just off the scale as it attempts (rather successfully it seems) to destroy itself. [...] Question: does H1B have any meaning if your workers are working from "home?"
I have a better question. What do you think happens if California destroys itself? The Californians y'all dislike so much will move to other states and "Californicate" them. Is it really in your best interest to see California fail?
Re: (Score:2)
California is just off the scale as it attempts (rather successfully it seems) to destroy itself.
Based on? I'm not from the USA so I decided to look it up. It seems over the past 10 years the growth in the economy of California has outpaced the growth in the rest of the USA. The population has also increased and all the while its emissions are actually dropping. Were you being facetous, or do you actually have a metric and some data to show that CA is in fact destroying itself?
Question: does H1B have any meaning if your workers are working from "home?"
That depends on if your prospective employee is located in a suitable timezone or not.
Re: (Score:2)
California is just off the scale as it attempts (rather successfully it seems) to destroy itself.
Based on? I'm not from the USA so I decided to look it up. It seems over the past 10 years the growth in the economy of California has outpaced the growth in the rest of the USA. The population has also increased and all the while its emissions are actually dropping. Were you being facetous, or do you actually have a metric and some data to show that CA is in fact destroying itself?
Incredibly liberal and corrupt education system (a.k.a. our future), and a debt-to-GDP ratio that is one of the worst in the nation, for starters. Endless fires, overwhelming immigration issues, fucking insane (exit) taxes, and homelessness on par with no other state...I don't get around much, so I'm just curious; does every town full of billionaires have human shit littering the gilded streets?
Yeah. Not exactly the model of success that anyone wants to replicate.
And besides, the eventual death of over-th
Re: (Score:2)
does every town full of billionaires have human shit littering the gilded streets?
Well I can answer this one. The answer is yes, in the USA. That's what happens when the rich gentrify a city leaving the poor without a social safety net or anywhere to go. But I'm sure if you solve this there would be cries of "OMG socialism".
Also interesting that you pass judgement on a state with a population larger than most countries, based on a city of less than 1M people.
Yeah. Not exactly the model of success that anyone wants to replicate.
I'd argue if that's all you have to go by then it's very much the model of success people wish to replicate. Why do you think the b
Re: (Score:2)
does every town full of billionaires have human shit littering the gilded streets?
Well I can answer this one. The answer is yes, in the USA. That's what happens when the rich gentrify a city leaving the poor without a social safety net or anywhere to go. But I'm sure if you solve this there would be cries of "OMG socialism".
Also interesting that you pass judgement on a state with a population larger than most countries, based on a city of less than 1M people.
Not everyone who is homeless is due to poverty alone. We got rid of mental institutions and insane asylums long ago. They're on the streets now.
And America gets pissed about socialism because the rich gentrified their own country by being tax-dodgers. The "socialist" program you speak of, already exists via taxation. It's merely being bypassed by rampant corruption, and the American people do NOT feel they should be the ones paying more as trillions flow through tax havens. I wonder how many of your p
Re: Poor babies (Score:3, Insightful)
Time zones are still an issue, which means that Central and South America are the only realistic options for offshoring. But the Internet and power infrastructure there is pretty shaky.
Thereâ(TM)s also the language barrier to deal with. There are only so many people in that region who speak English well *and* are qualified software engineers, and many of them immigrate here at the first opportunity.
For decades, people have been predicting that software jobs would all be offshored but that hasnâ(TM
Re: Poor babies (Score:3)
Time zones mean bugger all.
East/West coast people have for years worked weird hours.
West Coast/Asia same.
East Coast/Europe same.
Re: (Score:2)
Time zones are still an issue, which means that Central and South America are the only realistic options for offshoring.
I guess the only offshoring America has realistically done has been Central and South America, right? Weird how many of them have an Indian accent.
For decades, people have been predicting that software jobs would all be offshored but that hasnâ(TM)t happened.
Hasn't happened for you, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Re: (Score:2)
None of you miserable fucks are getting the picture. If your job can be done remotely in the burbs, then that instantly translates into outsourcing it overseas for at or under the US hourly minimum wage rate! I have a question for all of you: Which political party will protect US jobs for Americans vs protecting the corporate executives?
(Predictable Response) "But...but...Orange Man Bad...and not giving my job away to a minority/foreigner...is racist/nationalist..??"
Yeah, it's practically funny watching the liberal mind crash into reality by the end of a single thought.
Only problem is, we can't afford to laugh anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
while Christianity is the rule of giving.
Yeah, giving your children to a priest so they can be fucked in the ass. Then giving the priest sanctuary by quietly moving him around so he can be a repeat offender for decades.
Thanks, but I'll pass on your magical guy-in-the-sky horseshit.
then why are you voting for the party of angry, hate raging, envious, spiteful and deceiving?
I'm not, I'm voting Democrat.