ADVERTISEMENT

Just nothin going on in Dc. People never went

That's a bit unfair, I think.

The underlying rationale for ending WFH isn't a desire to make people less happy; it's based on an assumption that productivity decreases from WFH.

Some places yes.

For Musk (one of his underlings from xAI wrote the OPM memo, having never worked in govt until last week).... The rationale is most certainly to make people miserable enough to quit. We know this since he wrote a WSJ Oped saying just that.
 
I have always believed that if you put people in a position where they can cheat more than half will cheat and rationalize it away. There's no way I would let people work from home if I was running a company. I was reading an article a while back about how much more crowded golf courses are throughout the day since companies started letting their employees work remotely. You think there might be a correlation? :)

What the hell does 'cheat' mean? Most work is results driven. KPIs, etc... If people achieve their objectives I don't give a shit if they are operating from the golf course every day.

We hire people for results, not punching a time clock like a cartoon character in a factory
 
Some places yes.

For Musk (one of his underlings from xAI wrote the OPM memo, having never worked in govt until last week).... The rationale is most certainly to make people miserable enough to quit. We know this since he wrote a WSJ Oped saying just that.
What the hell does 'cheat' mean? Most work is results driven. KPIs, etc... If people achieve their objectives I don't give a shit if they are operating from the golf course every day.

We hire people for results, not punching a time clock like a cartoon character in a factory
Why do you think 83 percent of CEOs want people in the office? Why does musk. Why do insurance defense lawyers have a monitor tracking their time at the computer and not just get the benefit of the doubt. Who do contingency lawyers often have billable? Bc bosses want to know the time is being put in.
 
Says the guy who sits in his office with the TV on all day...:rolleyes:
I 100 percent still get more done there. Now in fairness I walk to the office and don’t have a commute. I get people with a long commute eat a lot of water time. But at home I fck around more. Eat. Etc.
 
Why do you think 83 percent of CEOs want people in the office? Why does musk. Why do insurance defense lawyers have a monitor tracking their time at the computer and not just get the benefit of the doubt. Who do contingency lawyers often have billable? Bc bosses want to know the time is being put in.

I think there is value to being in the office. I don't think there is value being there 5 days a week.

Musk is an autistic freak who apparently doesn't sleep. And is remotely running however many companies while working in a Federal office space now.

Can certainly understand defense lawyers since they literally bill by the fractional hour. That's a different animal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
I think there is value to being in the office. I don't think there is value being there 5 days a week.

Musk is an autistic freak who apparently doesn't sleep. And is remotely running however many companies while working in a Federal office space now.

Can certainly understand defense lawyers since they literally bill by the fractional hour. That's a different animal.
No contingcy side at big contingency firms. Bc the bosses wanted to know how many hours they were putting in.
 
That's a bit unfair, I think.

The underlying rationale for ending WFH isn't a desire to make people less happy; it's based on an assumption that productivity decreases from WFH.
It certainly CAN. You simultaneously suggest we are all motivated by different things and we all work less well from home. Isn't it the job of a manager to look at 10 employees and tell seven their WFH isn't cutting it?

It seems now we pass blanket rules on almost anything to avoid actually doing our work. Many cannot work from home so no one can is one example.
 
I think there is value to being in the office. I don't think there is value being there 5 days a week.
This.
Musk is an autistic freak who apparently doesn't sleep. And is remotely running however many companies while working in a Federal office space now.
On Twitter half the day too....sounds inefficient.
Can certainly understand defense lawyers since they literally bill by the fractional hour. That's a different animal.
We have a 1940's understanding of work time in the 21st century. Results based pay would be better. Many jobs outside customer service are task centered. An accountant is paid to perform a task. There are periods of the work cycle where you are not going to need to do a 40 hour week or an 8 hour day. Same goes for many other types of jobs. As long as the job is completed efficiently and accurately (and on time) why do I care if the employee was chained to their desk for 8 hours?

There are so many time wasters that exist in office.
 
This.

On Twitter half the day too....sounds inefficient.

We have a 1940's understanding of work time in the 21st century. Results based pay would be better. Many jobs outside customer service are task centered. An accountant is paid to perform a task. There are periods of the work cycle where you are not going to need to do a 40 hour week or an 8 hour day. Same goes for many other types of jobs. As long as the job is completed efficiently and accurately (and on time) why do I care if the employee was chained to their desk for 8 hours?

There are so many time wasters that exist in office.
The idea is you can always get more out of em. I largely agree with you and twenty. If a development director has 5 clients that donate 2 mil a year great. Why make her sit at a desk. But then maybe salary isn’t the way to go. And for gov maybe the general schedule isn’t either.
 
The idea is you can always get more out of em. I largely agree with you and twenty. If a development director has 5 clients that donate 2 mil a year great. Why make her sit at a desk. But then maybe salary isn’t the way to go. And for gov maybe the general schedule isn’t either.
Salary is the way to go. It is just changing the idea around what that salary is buying you. In a factory it buys you time on a line. For a programmer it buys you work towards a final piece of software. For an accountant it buys you balanced and reconciled books. You pay the salary so that they are solely focused on your workload. And if they can get that done in 30 hours a week on average then you are getting the same as forcing them to spend 40 hours. A time frame incentivizes employees to just stretch the time because there is often not another task waiting for them.
 
Salary is the way to go. It is just changing the idea around what that salary is buying you. In a factory it buys you time on a line. For a programmer it buys you work towards a final piece of software. For an accountant it buys you balanced and reconciled books. You pay the salary so that they are solely focused on your workload. And if they can get that done in 30 hours a week on average then you are getting the same as forcing them to spend 40 hours. A time frame incentivizes employees to just stretch the time because there is often not another task waiting for them.
You’ve lost me. If they can get that done in 30 hours then why are you paying a salary for another 10. Use that 10 to someone else. Make them PT. If they get a salary and work 30 hours the employer is getting “cheated” in the sense that I believe @NPT intended. I have six businesses. Soon 5. The involvement is 40 hours to 20 minutes a week depending on which one, season etc. so if a person can get shit done in 30 why not pay them an agreed upon contract rate, or commission, and let them side hustle whatever. If we have one million gov ees who are being paid a 40 hour a week salary and they are home getting it done in 30 that makes no sense to me. That’s a million times ten hours wasted not appropriately compensated. And mind you I’ve never taken a business course and the only successful businesses I’m part of I don’t run.

Most jobs pay for the hours of work. Not project completed
 
Last edited:
Salary is the way to go. It is just changing the idea around what that salary is buying you. In a factory it buys you time on a line. For a programmer it buys you work towards a final piece of software. For an accountant it buys you balanced and reconciled books. You pay the salary so that they are solely focused on your workload. And if they can get that done in 30 hours a week on average then you are getting the same as forcing them to spend 40 hours. A time frame incentivizes employees to just stretch the time because there is often not another task waiting for them.
Think of it like this. You’ve got your dirty paralegal. You tell her this week I need you to respond to discovery in these four cases. And I need you to request meds in these three cases. And do two demand letters. She gets it done from home in 30 hours. That’s what you get.

If she’s at the office you walk in and ask. Watch the progress. And it’s all done on thur. Now you tell her hey since you finished that go organize files. Send out lien shit. You get more out of her. At home she’s sitting on it and you get less work out of her. Shit I saw it first hand with my ex wife. Running errands during the day etc. now they dragged her ass back and it’s all work for all 40 hours
 
No one wants to go back to the office. And again these weren’t remote jobs. They became that as a response to Covid now they don’t want to go back
I had to back to thd office after two years at home during covid. It is what it is. It's that or find a new job and I didn't want a new job.
 
Yup. And I have no doubt you’re in a leadership position so part of that is setting an example
I know a guy and his girlfriend who refuse to go back into an office. They now do contract jobs and literally have three or four different jobs in a year. If someone tries to make them come in they quit. I assume they have to buy their own insurance which must be crazy expensive. They also just cannot believe I had to go back into the office. They act like my employer is some evil group out to get it's employees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
I’m saying they can hire third parties for jobs that were being completing remotely if those people won’t come back to the office.
Of course. No one wants to go the office. I think it was literally twenty just a few days ago posting about people with cushy home gigs

If it saves money and makes sense for some fed ees on the gs to work remote or tele or hybrid great. Do it. But opm found it’s contributing to poorer services then change it

People who trump are going to have this instant oh that’s bad reflex to everything this admin does. Let’s see first
Yep I'm sure their end game is to contract a lot more of it out
I wonder who will own the third party? Maybe they can use some H1Bs to bring down the labor costs. #DOGE 😉
 
You’ve lost me. If they can get that done in 30 hours then why are you paying a salary for another 10. Use that 10 to someone else. Make them PT. If they get a salary and work 30 hours the employer is getting “cheated” in the sense that I believe @NPT intended. I have six businesses. Soon 5. The involvement is 40 hours to 20 minutes a week depending on which one, season etc. so if a person can get shit done in 30 why not pay them an agreed upon contract rate, or commission, and let them side hustle whatever. If we have one million gov ees who are being paid a 40 hour a week salary and they are home getting it done in 30 that makes no sense to me. That’s a million times ten hours wasted not appropriately compensated. And mind you I’ve never taken a business course and the only successful businesses I’m part of I don’t run.
You aren't truly paying for an 8 hour day with 8 hours of work. You are paying them to stay in the office for 8 hours while they complete the task you assigned them. Most of us don't work in factories anymore where people are making widgets.


Most jobs pay for the hours of work. Not project completed
No, most jobs pay you to be at work for 8 hours while you do what is assigned to you. Workers do what is asked of them and then fill the rest of the time with time wasters....like talking about how awful Woodson was at the end of the game today with the guy a cubicle over.
 
It certainly CAN. You simultaneously suggest we are all motivated by different things and we all work less well from home. Isn't it the job of a manager to look at 10 employees and tell seven their WFH isn't cutting it?

It seems now we pass blanket rules on almost anything to avoid actually doing our work. Many cannot work from home so no one can is one example.
No, I never stated "we all work less well from home." Please see post #108.

Re blanket rules, there is a cost/benefit analysis to do with general rules vs. managerial discretion. That's definitely part of the discussion here.
 
Think of it like this. You’ve got your dirty paralegal. You tell her this week I need you to respond to discovery in these four cases. And I need you to request meds in these three cases. And do two demand letters. She gets it done from home in 30 hours. That’s what you get.
Yes, she has an incentive to get done what you want her to get done in a quicker time. She completes her assigned task and then she has freedom to go on and do what she wants.
If she’s at the office you walk in and ask. Watch the progress. And it’s all done on thur.
No it isn't. Why?
Now you tell her hey since you finished that go organize files. Send out lien shit. You get more out of her.
Because she eventually learns this. Now you are in a position where you are telling her that she is going above and beyond your normal demands. That is going to make her feel like you need to compensate her more. If you don't, then her completing that work quickly and efficiently and then getting assigned more work begins to feel like a punishment for doing her job well. That is the psychology that the vast majority of people perform under. You asked me to do X in Z time. I completed it in Y time and you assigned me A, B, and C which were above your expectations of me. So I expect that my level 1 compensation should be moved to level 1 + %ABC of extra work to compensate me for being above your expectations. If an extended period of giving ABC is not eventually compensated then you will get X in Z time, not Y and a reasonable excuse will be given as to why, but the actual answer is because people don't like being whipped like a race horse.
At home she’s sitting on it and you get less work out of her. Shit I saw it first hand with my ex wife. Running errands during the day etc. now they dragged her ass back and it’s all work for all 40 hours
It is all work for all 40 hours but are they actually getting more work or are they getting the same output over a greater amount of monitored time. I would bet you it is closer to what I am saying then it is to them actually getting some 25% uptick from all their employees.

In an 8 hour day, you are lucky if 60% of that time is actually productive.
 
If you don't, then her completing that work quickly and efficiently and then getting assigned more work begins to feel like a punishment for doing her job well. That is the psychology that the vast majority of people perform under. You asked me to do X in Z time. I completed it in Y time and you assigned me A, B, and C which were above your expectations of me. So I expect that my level 1 compensation should be moved to level 1 + %ABC of extra work to compensate me for being above your expectations. If an extended period of giving ABC is not eventually compensated then you will get X in Z time, not Y and a reasonable excuse will be given as to why, but the actual answer is because people don't like being whipped like a race horse.

This is definitely true for my past and current employees. It's very difficult to manage this on a farm. A) Because the work is never totally done. B) There are so many different types of tasks, it's hard to know where everyone is at on each learning curve.

But the results are always as you decsribe.
 
Yes, she has an incentive to get done what you want her to get done in a quicker time. She completes her assigned task and then she has freedom to go on and do what she wants.

No it isn't. Why?

Because she eventually learns this. Now you are in a position where you are telling her that she is going above and beyond your normal demands. That is going to make her feel like you need to compensate her more. If you don't, then her completing that work quickly and efficiently and then getting assigned more work begins to feel like a punishment for doing her job well. That is the psychology that the vast majority of people perform under. You asked me to do X in Z time. I completed it in Y time and you assigned me A, B, and C which were above your expectations of me. So I expect that my level 1 compensation should be moved to level 1 + %ABC of extra work to compensate me for being above your expectations. If an extended period of giving ABC is not eventually compensated then you will get X in Z time, not Y and a reasonable excuse will be given as to why, but the actual answer is because people don't like being whipped like a race horse.

It is all work for all 40 hours but are they actually getting more work or are they getting the same output over a greater amount of monitored time. I would bet you it is closer to what I am saying then it is to them actually getting some 25% uptick from all their employees.

In an 8 hour day, you are lucky if 60% of that time is actually productive.
 
Yes, she has an incentive to get done what you want her to get done in a quicker time. She completes her assigned task and then she has freedom to go on and do what she wants.

No it isn't. Why?

Because she eventually learns this. Now you are in a position where you are telling her that she is going above and beyond your normal demands. That is going to make her feel like you need to compensate her more. If you don't, then her completing that work quickly and efficiently and then getting assigned more work begins to feel like a punishment for doing her job well. That is the psychology that the vast majority of people perform under. You asked me to do X in Z time. I completed it in Y time and you assigned me A, B, and C which were above your expectations of me. So I expect that my level 1 compensation should be moved to level 1 + %ABC of extra work to compensate me for being above your expectations. If an extended period of giving ABC is not eventually compensated then you will get X in Z time, not Y and a reasonable excuse will be given as to why, but the actual answer is because people don't like being whipped like a race horse.

It is all work for all 40 hours but are they actually getting more work or are they getting the same output over a greater amount of monitored time. I would bet you it is closer to what I am saying then it is to them actually getting some 25% uptick from all their employees.

In an 8 hour day, you are lucky if 60% of that time is actually productive.
From a small employer perspective, good employees do more than assigned. It's impossible to name and identify everything you want done within a certain amount of time. There is always more work than hours in the day to do it. Maybe corporate America is different (if so, I guess they're paying for redundancy, which isn't necessarily a bad thing).

From my experience, though, those who say "but you said I only had to do this and I finished now I want to go home" are the ones you get rid of. You want people who understand their "job" is to make the firm successful and I'm paying you to do that 40 hrs a week. If you do a better job at it than others, then I'll pay you more. The best employees I've ever had understood this and did stuff all the time I had not assigned them. Other people I know who own small businesses have expressed the same sentiment.

I'd also guess that if you're a completely transactional type employee focused on only doing a very specific assigned task, you risk being replaced that much more easily by AI or tech or whatever that is cheaper. If you're the type who has a more general outlook like I described above, a good employer will do anything they can to keep you.
 
From a small employer perspective, good employees do more than assigned. It's impossible to name and identify everything you want done within a certain amount of time. There is always more work than hours in the day to do it. Maybe corporate America is different (if so, I guess they're paying for redundancy, which isn't necessarily a bad thing).

From my experience, though, those who say "but you said I only had to do this and I finished now I want to go home" are the ones you get rid of. You want people who understand their "job" is to make the firm successful and I'm paying you to do that 40 hrs a week. If you do a better job at it than others, then I'll pay you more. The best employees I've ever had understood this and did stuff all the time I had not assigned them. Other people I know who own small businesses have expressed the same sentiment.

I'd also guess that if you're a completely transactional type employee focused on only doing a very specific assigned task, you risk being replaced that much more easily by AI or tech or whatever that is cheaper. If you're the type who has a more general outlook like I described above, a good employer will do anything they can to keep you.
This reminds me of the “what/how do you do to motivate your team” interview questions (in higher ed).

There are people who do their job well and what only is required of them with no aspirations beyond that job, which is fine. Think of a place like IU where someone commutes outside of town and they have a much better job/benefits than anything Owen or Greene County can offer.

Then you have the obvious employees who do and want more. So you give them more opportunity and incentive to grow, even though you’re asking more of them than someone else in a similar position.

Although this example definitely doesn’t translate in other areas of the country where all employees are the latter (or they think they are).
 
Interesting discussion about working from home or at the office.

One point not mentioned is the non-work social interactions among people in a common location. I think this is important for human beings. In my experience, brief conversations about kids, current events, sports, or what have you with coworkers are priceless. We had birthday remembrances, spontaneous pizza parties, and all kinds of stuff that made us into a cohesive and focused team. You ate something in the break room on April fools day at your peril. People often brought in baked goods or cinnamon rolls. Always a hit. We had beer and wine in the office with pretty strict rules about their use. This kind of atmosphere makes the office a pleasant place. In fairness though, the commute for most of us was 15 minutes or so.

My son’s job requires him to be at work. He loves his job because he enjoys the people. He is very gregarious and would hate working from home.
 
This reminds me of the “what/how do you do to motivate your team” interview questions (in higher ed).

There are people who do their job well and what only is required of them with no aspirations beyond that job, which is fine. Think of a place like IU where someone commutes outside of town and they have a much better job/benefits than anything Owen or Greene County can offer.

Then you have the obvious employees who do and want more. So you give them more opportunity and incentive to grow, even though you’re asking more of them than someone else in a similar position.

Although this example definitely doesn’t translate in other areas of the country where all employees are the latter (or they think they are).
The people who worked directly with me were busy when I was busy, when I slowed down so did they. Weeks when I was in the office 50+ hours, the staff was very busy. I’d often finish the day when most had gone home by leaving files with notes attached on several different desks.
 
Interesting discussion about working from home or at the office.

One point not mentioned is the non-work social interactions among people in a common location. I think this is important for human beings. In my experience, brief conversations about kids, current events, sports, or what have you with coworkers are priceless. We had birthday remembrances, spontaneous pizza parties, and all kinds of stuff that made us into a cohesive and focused team. You ate something in the break room on April fools day at your peril. People often brought in baked goods or cinnamon rolls. Always a hit. We had beer and wine in the office with pretty strict rules about their use. This kind of atmosphere makes the office a pleasant place. In fairness though, the commute for most of us was 15 minutes or so.

My son’s job requires him to be at work. He loves his job because he enjoys the people. He is very gregarious and would hate working from home.
Working at home was fine but zoom meetings aren't like real meetings imo. It had advantages like no commute but no personal interaction gets old. I mean maybe if you don't like being around people it rocks. I know people who could work from home but choose not too they want to be in the office. And the one I know who refuses to work in an office just seems to lack normal conversation skills. But each case is different.
 
Working at home was fine but zoom meetings aren't like real meetings imo. It had advantages like no commute but no personal interaction gets old. I mean maybe if you don't like being around people it rocks. I know people who could work from home but choose not too they want to be in the office. And the one I know who refuses to work in an office just seems to lack normal conversation skills. But each case is different.

@larsIU

Can you confirm zoom meetings aren't real meetings? Surely you've done one or two.
 
Soccer. Been there all morning. Learn how to interact with other humans. Oh you’re a doctor. Forget it. Too late. Carry on with the zero personality board misfits

You had an opp to contribute in this thread but like other bottom feeder dipshits you can’t get past trump. Your typical dogshit contribution.

Apologize to the board
I must have missed the profound insight you provided when I pointed out that DJT is punishing legal refugees in his war on illegal immigration. You sabotage every thread with your constant drivel. That’s why I rarely post here. It’s not worth reading paragraph after paragraph of your cut and paste responses
 
From a small employer perspective, good employees do more than assigned. It's impossible to name and identify everything you want done within a certain amount of time. There is always more work than hours in the day to do it. Maybe corporate America is different (if so, I guess they're paying for redundancy, which isn't necessarily a bad thing).
I think that there is usually something more that can be found to do but most people generally have a set amount of productivity they are going to give you on any given day. Even your best employees are not giving you 8 hours. Anyone honest with themselves knows that they aren't dialed in 100% of the time that they are at work. There may be certain days or a stretch of days where that happens like as you approach the last few days before a deadline, but that is usually followed by a letdown the days following completion. They are still working and still giving their "8 hours" but it isn't like the 8 they were giving right before the deadline.
From my experience, though, those who say "but you said I only had to do this and I finished now I want to go home" are the ones you get rid of. You want people who understand their "job" is to make the firm successful and I'm paying you to do that 40 hrs a week. If you do a better job at it than others, then I'll pay you more. The best employees I've ever had understood this and did stuff all the time I had not assigned them. Other people I know who own small businesses have expressed the same sentiment.
Yes. The carrot I mentioned. Your best employees will take what you assigned and instead of completing it in Z time will do it in Y time and then help you with tasks A,B,C as long as there is an incentive to go above and beyond. However, even your best employees will start to weigh the compensation against what they are being asked to do. The smaller your business, the less coworkers your superstar has to compare themselves to.

I find it odd that our biggest capitalists at times fail to recognize what motivates the basic employees. Each successive younger generation has become less loyal to the boss man and that trend down has followed what wages have done in comparison to productivity. "Well Crazy, robots and technology made people more productive..." Totally fair, so now people get more done in the 8 hours we have forced them to work since Ford was having them build the Model T but pay has not kept up. You will have periods where you have a highly motivated employee that you can keep motivated by the reason they are there. Money. However, eventually you run into a wall where you can't meet their expectation. Those who can will go find someone who will pay what they want and those who cannot will settle in after some point in time and do what you pay them for. If you have a bunch of employees that generally means they drop to just above average.
I'd also guess that if you're a completely transactional type employee focused on only doing a very specific assigned task, you risk being replaced that much more easily by AI or tech or whatever that is cheaper. If you're the type who has a more general outlook like I described above, a good employer will do anything they can to keep you.
If we are being honest, that kind of attitude is kind of why employees check out. "Why are you approaching this transactionally?" asks the owner or CEO.

"Well boss, I am doing a good job right?"

"Yes, you are. One of the best I have."

"Great, it would mean a bunch for my work/life balance if I continue to be your best employee, my pay doesn't change, but I only stay in the office 7 hours a day instead of 8. I will do everything to make sure that I reduce time wasters in the day so my production won't fall...."

"No, no, I need you the 8. If you can get it done in 7 then there is even more I can get out of you. Why would I pay the same for less time? And if you don't former great employee, well look out for A.I."

Yeah, you're transactional too boss. We all are. We get paid by you to do a job. Nobody is working for free. You don't pay McDonald's prices and epect Michelin service. Laborers are capitalists too. When you hire a plumber to do a service, he charges for every thing he finds above and beyond the initial call. Owners expecting 100% from everyone without having a compensation structure that accommodates for that end up where I said they do. It is a very small percentage of people that will continue to be their absolute best when they lose the carrot to keep being that way.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT