Washington Post Employees Ordered Back To the Office (washingtonian.com) 153
Long-time Slashdot reader DesScorp writes:
The Washingtonian magazine reports that yet another company is ending most remote work for its employees. The Post's previous policy from 2022 until now had been 3 days in office, 2 days remote. The employee union for the paper, the Washington Post Guild, will oppose the mandate.
The union sent members a defiant email, according to the article. "Guild leadership sees this for what it is: a change that stands to further disrupt our work than to improve our productivity or collaboration." Managers will have to return beginning February 3, 2025, and all other employees will be expected in the office beginning June 2 [according to a memo from publisher Will Lewis]. "I want that great office energy for us every day," Lewis writes. "I am reliably informed that is how it used to be here before Covid, and it's important we get this back."
The union sent members a defiant email, according to the article. "Guild leadership sees this for what it is: a change that stands to further disrupt our work than to improve our productivity or collaboration." Managers will have to return beginning February 3, 2025, and all other employees will be expected in the office beginning June 2 [according to a memo from publisher Will Lewis]. "I want that great office energy for us every day," Lewis writes. "I am reliably informed that is how it used to be here before Covid, and it's important we get this back."
It sounds like Will Lewis (Score:3)
Use Bezos as a signal (Score:3)
of what the future brings. There was a lot of noise about his refusal to allow WP to endorse Kamala. Turned out his bet was the right one.
Re:Use Bezos as a signal (Score:4, Insightful)
of what the future brings. There was a lot of noise about his refusal to allow WP to endorse Kamala. Turned out his bet was the right one.
For sufficiently small values of "right".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
of what the future brings. There was a lot of noise about his refusal to allow WP to endorse Kamala. Turned out his bet was the right one.
For sufficiently small values of "right".
Where "right" is defined as "don't get on the wrong side of the vindictive sociopath who has vowed retribution on all of his perceived enemies."
Re:Use Bezos as a signal (Score:5, Insightful)
of what the future brings.
You mean higher prices due to tariffs and a return to rising inflation?
Don't forget the interest rate hikes (Score:2)
The next 4 years the face eating leopards are going to be eating so damn well. Yet somehow the people whose face is get eaten will blame the minority political parties for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Leaving that aside, globalization in the name of cheaper consumer prices have cost Americans jobs in multiple industries.
As did his tariffs the last time around [harvard.edu].
After tariffs on Chinese goods jumped from 3 percent to 12 percent, Beijing retaliated by raising tariffs as high as 25 percent on many U.S. goods, including agricultural products and food, devastating U.S. farmers, particularly in the Midwest and Deep South. The USDA estimates that the retaliatory tariffs cost the U.S. $25.7 billion in revenues between 2018 and 2019, 95 percent of the total lost to tariffs imposed by European nations and Canada.
Trump’s actions failed to produce more jobs, and in some instances even had a negative effect on employment, according to a new working paper published in the National Bureau of Economic Research. But the move was successful in one area: winning over voters to Trump and the Republican Party.
And from another study [cfr.org]:
Several studies have examined the cost of the Section 301 tariffs on the U.S. economy. For example, economists Mary Amiti, Stephen J. Redding, and David Weinstein showed that by the end of the first year that the tariffs were in place, U.S. real income declined by $1.4 billion per month. More recently, trade analysts Tori Smith and Tom Lee from the American Action Forum found that U.S. consumers largely bore the brunt of the tariffs, paying a total of $48 billion—with half of this figure paid by U.S. firms that rely on intermediate inputs from China. A recent report by the United States International Trade Commission agreed that the cost of the tariffs was passed through to U.S. importers. Back in 2019, President Biden also agreed, stating, “Trump doesn’t get the basics. He thinks his tariffs are paid for by China. Any beginning econ student at Iowa or Iowa State could tell you the American people are paying his tariffs.”
The comments submitted to the USTR should then come as no surprise: many firms listed how the tariffs have led to a decrease in wages and employment, as well as less investment in domestic research and development (R&D). Firms have also noted the difficulty in sourcing alternative inputs, the added challenges posed by retaliatory tariffs from China, and the lack of concrete change to China’s behavior since the tariffs’ implementation. The costs are varied but significant.
While many respondents acknowledged that COVID-19 and high inflation contributed to layoffs, lower wages, and fewer hirings, tariffs were identified as an important factor in firms’ decisions to reduce their workforcesplaced responsibility on the tariffs for fewer bonuses, a reduction in their workforce by twenty-five people, and the need to move the manufacturing of a product line to China.
Let us know when the laws of economics are rescinded.
Re:Use Bezos as a signal (Score:5, Interesting)
Let us know when the laws of economics are rescinded.
Certainly. Go look at what happened when in the 2000s when gas jumped over $4/gallon. It acted as a tariff on everyone and it became cheaper to manufacture in the US than elsewhere. Factories started opening in NC. Google it if you're interested in learning more about it. The lesson is that tariffs, done properly, work.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Good point. Why didn't we have stickers with George Bush saying "I did this" plastered on gas pumps when he left office? Gas nearly tripled in price during his term.
Re: (Score:2)
Let us know when the laws of economics are rescinded.
Certainly. Go look at what happened when in the 2000s when gas jumped over $4/gallon. It acted as a tariff on everyone and it became cheaper to manufacture in the US than elsewhere. Factories started opening in NC. Google it if you're interested in learning more about it. The lesson is that tariffs, done properly, work.
Do you even understand what you type?
If gas is $4 a gallon everywhere and in america, you pay a worker $20/hr. In third world country X, you can pay a worker $3/hr. Not to mention land is more expensive in america, etc, etc.
How in the flying fuck does the math work out that it's "cheaper to manfacture in the US"?
Re: (Score:2)
It is extremely worrisome that incompetent people like you have the right to vote.
Read this article https://www.investopedia.com/t... [investopedia.com]
Tariffs DON'T work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly don't understand Ricardo's theory about comparative advantage. Find an economics 101 and read up on some basic economic theory. Price changes aren't tariffs. Duh!.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. I am European. The gas price here is around €2/l (that is something like €9 for your stupid imperial units?).
The cost of transport is negligible in most cases. You know that Norwegian fish is sent to China to be boned and then
returned to Norway to be packaged? Temu is another good example of why the cost of transport is irrelevant and won't influence where factories are built. Source your claim that a significant number of manufacturing was moved to the US due to the gas prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Use Bezos as a signal (Score:2)
So did Biden admin repeal all those tariffs? I honestly can't remember.
Also, while we're busy looking things up, did the Biden admin ever repeal those tax cuts for the rich when they held not only the Whitehouse but also both the Senate and Congress?
The answer is, Biden wanted the increased tax revenue and the money from the tariffs so they left them both in-place, yet complained about both...
Re: Use Bezos as a signal (Score:4, Informative)
Tariffs remained when Biden took over: https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
For his entire administration, Biden pretended he was helpless to change the tax code, even when he had both chambers of Congress under Democrat control. For those keeping track of such things, EVERYTHING Trump put in-place was reversed or cancelled by Biden EXCEPT the Afghan Withdrawal, Trump's Tarriffs, and Trump's tax cuts... isn't that interesting?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not really "interesting" as such. More like common sense politically.
The Afghan withdrawal was early and underway, reversing it would create just as much chaos as instigating it.
Tariffs (there's only one r in it) take a long time have an effect economically. Reversing them would immediately open to criticism from all sides including both those who think they were never given a chance and those who say America is an untrustworthy trader on the global stage due to flipflop politics. It makes more sense t
Re: Use Bezos as a signal (Score:2)
The Afghan withdrawal was early and underway, reversing it would create just as much chaos as instigating it.
It is well-reported that Trump had negotiated a withdrawl with metrics that had to be met before we would withdraw - Biden ignored those requirements and committed to withdrawl.
No one forced Biden admin to withdraw troops first, then civilians and collaborators - in fact Biden over-ruled his Generals and refused their withdrawl plans that had soldiers leaving last, not first.
No one forced Biden to leave $80BN in military equipment behind - that was Biden's decision.
The well-reported truth is that the withdr
Re: (Score:2)
EVERYTHING Trump put in-place was reversed or cancelled by Biden /p>
Biden isn't a dictator. He needs congress and more specifically the Senate to reverse the tax cuts. I hope I don't have to explain to you what kind of people are in the senate.
Your sad, pathetic reduction of a complex problem into a erroneous and disingenuous sentence is why Trump got elected. Turning truths into lies.
Re: Use Bezos as a signal (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Leaving that aside, globalization in the name of cheaper consumer prices have cost Americans jobs in multiple industries. Get ready for a quite a few economic dogmas to be proven wrong.
Definitely. During the Bush years when gas prices were over $4/gallon, oil prices acted as a natural tariff against everyone. Suddenly, factories in the US started reopening. (Side not: I'm not your research assistant, so if you're interested, google it.) Also, illegal immigration has contributed to lower wages. Illegal immigrants don't have to pay taxes, so employers can pay them less as illegal immigrants can work for less. Yes, the management of companies hiring them are also responsible for this. But, i
Re:Use Bezos as a signal (Score:5, Interesting)
Impressive how you can be so incorrect. Welcome to 2024. The manufacturing will not come back, it will be just shifted to another country. Or we will do without. Or if it somehow does come back, it will be highly automated and thus employ next to no one.
And in ALL cases, prices will rise. Tariffs protect one group, at the expense of everyone. Unless you intend to setup a closed economic system (you really can't), this will either set off hyper inflation, or general economic crash as shortages arise everywhere.
None of the things you want back can be made cost effectively here, unless Americans are prepared to get paid absolute shit. And I do mean shit, I'm talking half of minimum wage to do the drudge work that is done in China or India or Vietnam.
And the housing is almost entirely a supply issue, the immigrants using them wouldn't be a problem if NIMBY's hadn't crushed the industry to the point we build barely enough houses to handle the existing population, let alone any population increase.
Re: (Score:2)
It does not matter if companies decide to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. With a crimp on immigration, there will be no one to work at the slave wages they require in order to compete. If they raise wages to attract workers, they will increase the prices they charge, the same prices Americans are already claiming they cannot pay.
Asshole's Acolytes are already making noises about workplace raids for illegal immigrants. That will make companies really happy, even the ones that close because they cannot a
Re: (Score:2)
The manufacturing will not come back, it will be just shifted to another country
How much more ignorant can you be? When tariffs are placed on everybody, not a single, individual country, not just China, it works. There's no other place to go. With income taxes eliminated, the tariffs replace the same revenue for the government. In other words, we pay more but we also take home more. By the way, have you bought or used sugar lately? It's got a tariff on it regardless of where it comes from. Because of that tariff, it keeps US farms operating and people employed. And my point goes back i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly the ultimate solution to both our economic future and our environmental future is POPULISM. If that comes in the form of Donald Trump part II or not remains to be seen, it wasn't on the menu with Harris.
You want to save the planet - ok the way you do that is stop shipping crap all over the world. Not only will that have impact in its own right, it also means that people pay the costs for the stuff they want. If making product X is "dirty", local populations have to decide if it is worth the impact
Re: Use Bezos as a signal (Score:3, Insightful)
While there are always examples to cherry pick, overall I think the mistake is comparing the American dream (not reality) of the 1950s-70s to what a lower middle class person can expect today. Housing is outrageous but that's a bit of a blip since covid and it will find a way to stabilize. It's worth noting that housing is one of the very few significant expenses we have that are strictly
Re: (Score:2)
Nice way to dodge having to cite your sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that after 4 years of Trump's presidency you still don't understand his approach to negotiation.
Yeah, it was truly amazing how he got Mexico to pay for construction of that border wall!
Re: (Score:2)
Get ready for a quite a few economic dogmas to be proven wrong.
Why? Do you have a reason to believe the next 4 years will be different from the previous Trump term? You need to update your material. Your 2016 era comment doesn't make much sense.
Re: Use Bezos as a signal (Score:2)
As far as Trump's negotiating skills, I've never known anyone who was able to bankrupt a casino.
Casinos declare bankruptcy all the time, it isn't unheard off.
https://np.gov.lk/how-many-cas... [np.gov.lk]
Let's not forget, Trump bought his Atlantic City casino after the previous owners declared bankruptcy as I recall...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that bet actually turned out wrong since Trump filed a FEC complaint against WaPo, ie Bezo's nixxing of the endorsement didn't help in the least to get him into Trump's good graces.
FEC Complaint: https://s3.documentcloud.org/d... [documentcloud.org]
Re:Use Bezos as a signal (Score:5, Interesting)
What we've seen over and over is that you can never be obsequious enough for Trump. Even a complete toady like Lindsay Graham regularly found himself on Trump's shitlist on multiple occasions.
Tangentially - I am anticipating with bated breath (and popcorn) the inevitable Trump-Musk blowup. Eventually one or both will decide the other one doesn't deserve the (perceived outsized amount of) attention they're getting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's an angle to some of this that I don't think people are seeing yet: with Musk involved deeply in whatever the hell they're going to do (nobody knows, and if they think they do, they're likely wrong) - if they take away EV incentives, there's a good chance that Detroit can't make EVs profitable and they just stop trying. Tesla and Rivian would then be the only market players, and it's unclear if Rivian would have a path to profitability or not.
This could merely be a backdoor to handing Tesla a de fac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(I need to remind myself that this really would be a bad thing, in the larger scheme of things.)
Re: (Score:2)
Also see: Nikki Haley.
Completely debased herself after staying in the primary too long for Trump's liking. And one of his first actions as President-Elect is to say she won't be joining his administration.
These people never learn.
Re: (Score:2)
Bezos did that because he had already done a deal with the former alleged president re his silly rocket company. He sold out, just like all the rest of the former alleged president's supporters.
Re: (Score:2)
It was the "right" short term bet.
It remains to be seen if this is a case of mortgaging the future to pay for right now.
Re:It sounds like Will Lewis (Score:5, Informative)
employees reluctantly dragging themselves into the office like they're at a corporate re-enactment of The Walking Dead.
That's every job I've ever had, with varying degrees of soul-sucking powers.
Re: (Score:2)
I am reliably informed (Score:4, Insightful)
"I am reliably informed by Our Lord Bezos that is how it used to be in the office before Covid, and I want my paycheck to continue arriving at my bank. May he live forever!"
Re:I am reliably informed (Score:5, Insightful)
I am reliably informed...
Not if you are only reading The Washington Post.
And If They Don't Return? (Score:2)
Will The Washington Post replace that human-created content with AI-created content?
Honestly, it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between the two.
Re:And If They Don't Return? (Score:5, Informative)
Translation (Score:2)
Our overlord has a bunch of real estate that is sitting idle, and he wants it used. He's willing to take a major productivity loss in order to make that happen, so hop to it!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Our overlord has a bunch of real estate that is sitting idle
WaPo rents office space at One Franklin Square in DC.
Neither WaPo nor Bezos owns the premises.
So your conspiracy theory that employees are being ordered back to the office to support real estate prices is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
So your conspiracy theory that employees are being ordered back to the office to support real estate prices is nonsense.
Not necessarily. There's a distinct possibility the building owners have been in consoltation with the businesses that rent from them (or used to rent) explaining how they'll lower rent costs if businesses fill the space because they're losing money with people working from home.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how rents work.
The space was rented out. The whole thing being paid for on a multi year contract. Having fewer staff present does not reduce the rent.
The only way rent was lower is if wapo gave up one or more floors which is unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Wapo is so small you think they share floor space?
Re: (Score:2)
So your conspiracy theory that employees are being ordered back to the office to support real estate prices is nonsense.
It's a big club, and you aren't in it.
Re: (Score:3)
There are far m
Re: (Score:2)
There are far more simple reasons including management having a hard time justifying their own existence if they don't have people around to manage. The people in those roles are used to doing things they way they have been doing them for decades and aren't comfortable with change, even if that change might be for the better.
Not my problem. They can always find another in office job.
Re: (Score:2)
So your conspiracy theory that employees are being ordered back to the office to support real estate prices is nonsense.
Alright then. When a brand new company starts up and actually hires grown-ass adults as managers who are fully capable of managing good employees who have all collectively proven WFH works just fine, and start to compete against the old-fashioned corporate mentality of RTO and all of the companies carrying the fucking massive financial burden of obscene real estate lease costs, insane property taxes, associated daily, weekly, and monthly upkeep of the building along with annual maintenance and inspections,
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think they like paying for leased space that is going under-used?
Do you think the lease has language in it allowing them to pay less if it's used less?
Does any commercial real estate lease work that way? In the history of commercial real estate leases?
What are you even talking about?
or... (Score:2)
they could go and get a job elsewhere (like MSNBC)
Re: (Score:2)
Is msnbc looking for hundreds of new employees who work in a vaguely related but different field? Who says that's an option or that even if they got an msnbc job it would be for the same company and still provide wfh?
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft hasn't been involved in MSNBC since 2012 [cbsnews.com].
They are completely owned and run by NBCUniversal Comcast.
Water cooler talk (Score:2)
Will be ALL ABOUT how Jeff Bezos has ruined the paper and how that helped Trump. This will be self-reinforcing negativism. It's a terrible human factors/sociology call by the Post's management.
Re:Water cooler talk (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn’t a coincidence. The clear message to the remaining staff is “we will bow to the new leader, and if you don’t like it, you can leave anytime you want”. Others will leave, and Bezos will replace them with more pliable people.
The newspaper will rapidly shrink and lose money. The market for a conservative newspaper in DC is barely even a blip. Bezos knows this. His larger goal is to stay on Trump’s good side in order to avoid any regulatory action on his other company. You know, the one that rhymes with “marathon”? Any money lost on the newspaper is pocket change.
Bezos had better watch his back. Trump has zero loyalty beyond his children and barely even knows the meaning of the word “gratitude”. I suspect both Bezos and Musk are in for a nasty time. Probably sooner than they expect, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't a bunch of them who don't believe in journalism already quit? Maybe that's good for the long term health of the company.
Everyone can be replaced. No one is special. But anyone who doesn't like their work conditions absolutely should go see what else is out there and quit if they can find something more appropriate.
When I was new to managing and lost someone I tried really hard to save them but it rarely worked. Later on, I only asked the reasoning behind the decision, wished them all the best and
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you would wonder because you've never managed. You're an idiot but I'll give an answer to the real people who might be reading.
Because even when you manage the group that other people are begging to get into, sometimes people have their own reasons to go and there's nothing you can do about it.
I mostly worked startups. One guy left when he got married and his new wife insisted he get a 9-5 closer to home so she could see him more. Another guy wanted to grow his technical skills in an area my company
Bezos is gonna do a purge (Score:5, Insightful)
Letting 0.1% of the voting public buy 99% of the media is not going to end well for any of us. Doesn't matter how informed you are if your neighbors are all guzzing down billionaire backed propaganda.
Re:Bezos is gonna do a purge (Score:4, Informative)
is not going to end well
It's already ended well. These people and their reporting is effectively useless and if they vanished tomorrow, we would notice, but nothing of value would have been lost.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Omg, you are so right! 99% of our media being owned by 0.1% is fucking horrible. What we need is the People's Media. We can all own all the media and pay for it with tax money.
We can set up websites and let people post their own videos and opinions and news from around the world.
Are you with me, Brother?! Let's rock this socialized media shit!
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Only if they want to stop bleeding viewers, subscribers and advertisers.
Hasn't happened yet.
Re: (Score:2)
He's got to do a purge. Because of an edict from Bezos to not do a presidential endorsement - that backfired so badly, Bezos was forced to write a opinion piece about it that basically said nothing other than what everyone knew - he nuked the article.
As a result, a quarter million subscribers to WaPo cancelled. In a struggling industry, that's a huge number. (Note that newspaper subscriptions only really pay for the delivery - the paper itself is paid for by the ads, but now they're getting a quarter millio
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, or here's a competing theory:
Those subscribers that left enjoyed a free press that wouldn't buckle to the demands of politicians. The Washington Post used to be that paper - they're the ones that took down Nixon, if you recall. They also published and fought for the right to continue publishing the Pentagon Papers, took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won.
Now they're run by bootlickers that are essentially saying "please don't hurt me." That cowardly act showed what they're going to do for
Re: (Score:2)
As far as the lost subscribers, had they gone ahead and done the endorsement the end result would have been the same. (It was hardly a close race.) Good chance those subscribers would have cancelled anyway due to the failed endorsement.
What? That's not how endorsements work.
Endorsements might work a certain way, but this is American politics. Only thing proven to work is the gullibility of an audience too stupid to know better. We have people threatening to leave their own citizen birth country now that Trump is President-elect. The hell do you mean that’s not how endorsements work. Seems to be exactly how they work.
And in case you’re not quite getting it, I meant the end result of the election would not have changed even if they gave an endorsement for Harris.
Re: (Score:2)
or try to. It's his paper, he's not going to let it argue against his interests.
Thats not a CEO/business owner running a newspaper.
Thats an asshole demanding public discourse bend to his will.
If you can’t take the heat, don’t even think about buying a kitchen appliance. Let alone step foot in a kitchen.
It's about audience (Score:2)
Or take the propaganda outlet PragerU who bought their way on to YouTube with tens of thousands of dollars of ads. Sure if I had a lot of money lying around and nothing but time because I was independently wealthy I
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose is to reduce expenses (Score:3)
Bezos wants to trim headcount. This is an easy way to do that.
Lots of businesses are doing the same for the same reason
Re: (Score:2)
Bezos wants to trim headcount. This is an easy way to do that.
Lots of businesses are doing the same for the same reason
Lots of grown-ass adult managers and executives, all collectively assume their children employees (who have proven WFH capability for years) are far too stupid to understand a simple need to trim headcount, so all have collectively agreed to collude and abuse a RTO mandate under the guise of trimming headcount.
In other words, lots of businesses are fucking lying. We have no fucking idea if it’s a headcount trim, a pension save due to commercial real estate investments, protecting the entire corruptly
let's fix that headline: WSJ lays off staff (Score:3)
let's fix that headline: WSJ lays off staff
Can we just start to openly call these RTO mandates what they are, concealed lay offs. They want to save on severance payouts... so they do these.
Curious how many lawsuits were filed and won for wrongful termination or breach of contract by companies that did these moves. We likely don't hear about them due to NDAs.... but there have to be many. Can't see it being legal to fire someone that doesn't want to RTO when they were hired for a role that was full-time WFH.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't see it being legal to fire someone that doesn't want to RTO when they were hired for a role that was full-time WFH.
Depends on whether WFH was part of the employment contract and on what terms.
Even Perplexity know it is a crock (Score:2)
âoe
The push to end remote working stems from several factors:
Control and Supervision: Many executives prefer in-office work to maintain oversight and control over employees, fearing a lack of productivity when workers are unsupervised13.
Commercial Real Estate: Companies face financial pressure to utilize expensive office spaces, leading them to mandate a return to the office to avoid losses on real estate investments34.
Cultural Concerns: Leaders often argue that remote work erodes company culture and c
Re: (Score:2)
The push to end remote working stems from several factors: Commercial Real Estate: Companies face financial pressure to utilize expensive office spaces, leading them to mandate a return to the office to avoid losses on real estate investments.
The push to bring back WFH will stem from one factor: when the new competition hiring grown-ass adults to work for grown-ass managers who work for grown-ass executives starts crushing your business because they have zero commercial real estate expenses.
They'll also capture your best and brightest (crushing your salaries too) to sustain that happy and productive workforce who are not forced to waste countless hours sitting behind a steering wheel adding to death tolls on road-rage congested roadways, drivin
They don't care if some employees quit (Score:2)
1. They want the ones who don't have the financial means to quit. They can "alter the deal" further and they'll have no choice but to accept the terms. They want subservient employees. This means those who don't have the means to quit, this way they can "twiddle the dials" and further enshittify the job and the people dependent on them will have no choice but to grin and bear it.
2. They view all employees as interchangeable cogs. If they lose a few, they'll be plenty more who are hungrier who will accept a
Fuck Bezos with 480V 3-phase (Score:2)
I'd be satisfied with 240v on either end. (Score:2)
RTO is all about ham-fisted control and utopian management social engineering, not employee satisfaction or saving employees' time and money. Just opt-out and send them the right message by working elsewhere.
Some people feel stuck. All of this return to work shit is a filter. They're trying to filter out those with a bit of spine and enough means to quit and find other work. Those who feel stuck? They'll bring back to the office, then slowly tighten the screws on them. The oligarchs want to return to slavery, but they'll be almost as satisfied with indentured servitude.
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably what they're actually looking for - this is a self-selecting layoff in disguise to dodge paying severance / buying out union contracts / avoid WARN.
Remember, they just lost >10% of their subscriber base because their managing editor is a coward. That probably puts their profitability underwater without cutting expenses.
Bye, bye, WP (Score:2)
Fuck 'em. (Score:2)
Can they do that? (Score:2)
Re: Do what you're told (Score:3)
Re: Do what you're told (Score:3)
The whole point of a union is to complicate that equation!
Re: Do what you're told (Score:2)
Why? A union simply does for a corporation what a republic does for a monarch.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people called this after Covid was officially over, that wfh was not going to be the new forever thing for most workers. We got modded troll.
As if modding us down would preserve wfh.
Schedule F for "fired" (Score:2)
A GS13-GS15 federal employees are about to be come "At-will" employees.
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2024/11/trumps-promise-to-revive-schedule-f-could-become-a-prompt-reality/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They want to downsize the bureaucracy.
What is wrong with that goal?
Re: (Score:2)
It lacks definition.
Example: if they are downsizing the bureaucracy in a responsible manner, it's probably a good thing. If they're downsizing it in order to make it ineffective, which becomes an argument for eliminating it (see: all the damage done to USPS) then it becomes a problem. Those agencies exist for a reason, and perform a function that was deemed to be necessary the last time a spending resolution was approved to pay for it.