Weird argument. People were required to work from home because of Covid and now you want employers to pay them to return to the office. And what does high inflation have to do with this issue - wage growth currently at 4% is contributing to inflation and it will make an above-average contribution if productivity falls as a result of working from home. If a mutual agreement can be devised to permit high levers of working from home then go for it. Otherwise employees need to accept the terms of the contract you were employed under or quit.
This sort of advocacy sounds like pursuit of the "no production" option often advocated by the Labor Party. In effect: We don't need a productive private economy - we can live on government spending, taxes on the rich and welfare payments to almost everyone. .
I wonder how they're defining and measuring "culture". In my experience in Silicon Valley it's a real thing companies and their HR departments invest a significant effort in defining and promoting (lots of community and charity engagement under the brand, promoting "high-performance", and some legal-driven bits about work environment). The popular cynicism is its about "control" and managers' ability to glare at them, but that doesn't seem like it would exite the C-suite. Productivity would. Any company big enough to have an IT department is measuring computer usage, and they may not like what they see. The strong need to get the kittens back in the box just seems odd absent the motive. Not strong enough to pay people yet, though.
Each firm need to figure out what set of work rules and compensation optimizes output, use of space, and worker satisfaction. It probably needs to be pretty granular by kind of job.
It's all about underwriting the expense of CBD office space, and supporting video rental shops … err … cafes who would otherwise go under.
Weird argument. People were required to work from home because of Covid and now you want employers to pay them to return to the office. And what does high inflation have to do with this issue - wage growth currently at 4% is contributing to inflation and it will make an above-average contribution if productivity falls as a result of working from home. If a mutual agreement can be devised to permit high levers of working from home then go for it. Otherwise employees need to accept the terms of the contract you were employed under or quit.
This sort of advocacy sounds like pursuit of the "no production" option often advocated by the Labor Party. In effect: We don't need a productive private economy - we can live on government spending, taxes on the rich and welfare payments to almost everyone. .
Please adopt a more polite tone, if you wish to continue commenting.
I wonder how they're defining and measuring "culture". In my experience in Silicon Valley it's a real thing companies and their HR departments invest a significant effort in defining and promoting (lots of community and charity engagement under the brand, promoting "high-performance", and some legal-driven bits about work environment). The popular cynicism is its about "control" and managers' ability to glare at them, but that doesn't seem like it would exite the C-suite. Productivity would. Any company big enough to have an IT department is measuring computer usage, and they may not like what they see. The strong need to get the kittens back in the box just seems odd absent the motive. Not strong enough to pay people yet, though.
Each firm need to figure out what set of work rules and compensation optimizes output, use of space, and worker satisfaction. It probably needs to be pretty granular by kind of job.