People always say there are tangible benefits, but then rarely ever give any actual evidence.
Covid forced anyone who could work remotely to work remotely, and the economy went through the roof. Tech especially had some of their best years - ever.
I also want to call out that a lot of employees that were hired during the pandemic were hired out of region - in other states, across the country. Most “return to office” mandates are veiled layoffs hiding behind the need for employees to be in person for arbitrary reasons. By forcing them back in office they get to claim employees failed to show up for work, neglecting the whole “They work in Arizona and the job is in Tennessee” bit.
The brass tacks is that:
- Employers pay sometimes by the decade to rent office space and are annoyed that it’s sitting empty and
- Bad managers don’t know how to manage if they aren’t micromanaging their employees. Good managers have no problem managing remotely.
- It’s an easy way to cut costs by forcing people working out of state to quit while claiming they were never fired.
0110010001100010@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Do you have any data to back any of that up? Cause the data, by in large, contradicts that: computerworld.com/…/why-return-to-office-mandates…
BlueLineBae@midwest.social 9 months ago
That was a good article with lots of great sources. But my tinfoil hat is telling me that all of these large companies demanding return to office aren’t doing it because “beliefs”. They’re doing it because the people have gained too much power in the last few years and this is the strategy to put them back in their place. Lay people off in hordes while interest is skyrocketing and demand more from them if they want to keep their jobs. Make them afraid and vulnerable so we can control them better. But again… that’s the tinfoil hat talking.
Big_Boss_77@kbin.social 9 months ago
Definitely makes sense...
canihasaccount@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Beyond self-reports and perception-based outcomes, most extant studies that I’m aware of have found decreases in real output. For example, a randomized controlled trial by the NBER found that productivity of employees randomly assigned to work from home was 18% lower than employees randomly assigned to work in the office:
www.nber.org/papers/w31515
Another study found that output decreased by around 13% when employees worked from home, even though hours worked increased:
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/…/721803
Cognitive performance may also decline in remote settings:
academic.oup.com/ej/article/132/643/1218/6445994
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
Ah this paper again.
If you look at the paper itself (especially graph 1B) and if you look at normal output levels for basically any complex job, you’ll see that this conclusion can easily be reworded as “during WFH, output reduced to levels equal to those of a year before, continuing a trend that had started months before Covid/WFH”.
It’s basically a useless measurement, and the authors themselves even suggest they should maybe compensate for periodicity, but then don’t do that.
canihasaccount@lemmy.world 9 months ago
First, the RCT is a much stronger study. I’m not sure why you’re picking a bone with a correlational paper when there is a causal manipulation that I linked first.
Second, did you actually read the paper? 1B isn’t the graph of productivity; 1C is. You can’t just look at a graph, either–you need statistics.
“For Output, figure 1B, there is no visible monotonic or linear trend, so a seasonal time correction might be more appropriate here. Moreover, average output appears to be slightly lower during WFH.
For Productivity, figure 1C, the graph is more volatile, which is not surprising for a ratio. There is no clear linear time trend before WFH, but some variation from month to month, so a seasonal correction might be more appropriate. Productivity drops visibly during WFH. Finally, figure 1D plots the log of Productivity, which drops considerably after the start of WFH.
To quantify the WFH effect, and to control for employee and team time-invariant variables (via employee and team fixed effects), we now turn to the regression analyses. Informally, the estimates give us average differences in outcomes before and during WFH for the same employee, controlling for team effects (since employees sometimes switch teams) and time trends.
Table 4 reports WFH effect estimates based on OLS regressions for all three outcome variables, plus the natural logarithm of Productivity, in each case with linear and seasonal time trend corrections. All estimates are in line with the visible effects in the raw data in figure 1.
…
Columns 5 and 6 show that both WFH effect estimates on Productivity are negative, but only the estimate with seasonal time trend is significantly different from zero. We prefer that specification, since both the plot and the linear time trend coefficient indicate that a linear trend is not as appropriate. According to this specification, productivity decreased by 0.26 output percentage points per hour worked. Given an average WFO productivity of 1.36, this estimate corresponds to a 19% drop in output per hour worked. This is economically significant: if employees worked a fixed 40 hours per week, this would imply a drop in output of 10.2 output percentage points in a week. In other words, if employees had not increased time worked during WFH, on average they would have completed only 90 of 100 assigned tasks.”
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Your claim is you’re stupider when you work from home? And you’re basing that off of online chess tournaments?
canihasaccount@lemmy.world 9 months ago
No, it isn’t; performance != ability, and it’s not clear that cognitive performance declines at all–hence the word “may” mean to you?
My claim is that
Nothing more.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 9 months ago
*buyin’ large
synae@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
fuckingcapitalists