I think work from home and also the adoption of the 4 day work week will be critical to tackling the climate crisis
People who work from home all the time ‘cut emissions by 54%’ against those in office
Submitted 1 year ago by MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com to workreform@lemmy.world
Comments
Ni@kbin.social 1 year ago
cooopsspace@infosec.pub 1 year ago
It’s also the 20% payrise we all absofuckinglutely need.
MrBusinessMan@lemm.ee 1 year ago
But at what cost? Employees are less productive without the watchful eye of a skilled manager.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Another MrBusinessMan banger 😄
WindowsEnjoyer@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Employees don’t work from home!!1!11!1!1!!
Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world 1 year ago
But think of the commercial property prices!
cricket97@lemmy.world 1 year ago
individual civilian emissions are so inconsequential in the grand scheme of things that it makes me laugh when people talk about shit like this. A vast, vast majority comes from industries, not individuals driving a car to work.
hark@lemmy.world 1 year ago
They are, but when large masses of people are allowed to significantly reduce their emissions and with no downsides (other than middle managers’ feelings, which no one but them consider a downside), then it’s worth it.
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Tell that to my desk chair hahaa pass the crudité.
Sanctus@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Fuck, just let us live our lives.
DasRubberDuck@feddit.de 1 year ago
And then there is the guys in the factory and the warehouse who can not be afforded this “luxury”. The doctors and nurses, the school- and kindergarten-teachers who need to be at a specific place to do their jobs. This proposal simply does not work for everybody. The whole “work from home debate” seem to focus on a particular kind of jobs and disregards that all those jobs only exists, because manufacturing takes place in China. I’d love to see a change of focus, from product price to quality and sustainability of industry products to go along with qualified manufacturing jobs returning to Europe. And in that context we can hopefully stop shifting the exploitation of workers to Asia along with the Jobs and exploit our own workers again. NO! Of course, not exploit them as much anymore.
retrieval4558@mander.xyz 1 year ago
I’m one of those people who needs to be at a specific location. That has nothing to do with WFH for other people, and I think the option should be broadly available for jobs for which it’s possible. There is no one solution that addresses all possible situations.
DasRubberDuck@feddit.de 1 year ago
I’m not saying working from home should not be available for anybody who wants to do it, sorry if I sounded like it. I just wanted to emphasize that it is a solution for a specific subset of employees. I see a big potential to alienate a big chunk of people if we don’t put this in context.
GetAwayWithThis@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
You are right but massive WFH adoption where possible would mean less commuters, less idling in trafic. Maybe even leaves space for some downsizeing of the car based infra we have, to be replaced with bike friendly or more walkable spaces/roads.
The manufacturing jobs are a tough one. It would be nice to see a shift, but not only by bringing the jobs back, but also by lifting up the exploited workers in Asia for example. It might just level the market to be competitive? I have no idea hoe it would look like, just a thouhht.
DasRubberDuck@feddit.de 1 year ago
The manufacturing question is a tough one, because changing this requires taking short term profits away from companies and exchanging them for a long term better future. That’s a tough idea to sell. But I guess I’m derailing the discussion a bit with that point.
Letting people work from home is an easy decision in contrast. That’s just about changing some insecure managers minds. You can usually do that with numbers. Same goes for 4 day work weeks. Both of those are inevitable because companies who adopt it will have a competitive advantage in terms of acquiring talent in the next 10 years.
GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 1 year ago
IDK what to tell ya dude. It’s an option for a lot of people. Sorry you work in a warehouse i guess?
Also don’t look in your neighbor’s bowl unless it’s to make sure they have enough.
Lazz45@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Its not specific to warehouses. This is how most of the industrial sector operates. This is where all the products and their precursors come from every single day. Reducing production reduces supply (in term sky rocketing price) and literally every single part of the supply chain of almost all products are actively strained.
Again I agree with the other commenter that it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen for office workers, just that everyone who spouts this off completely forgets about a VERY LARGE and IMPACTFUL portion of the labor market
DasRubberDuck@feddit.de 1 year ago
Sorry you work in a warehouse i guess? […] Also don’t look in your neighbor’s bowl unless it’s to make sure they have enough.
a. I don’t. b. That’s my point. Improvements in the workplace are great. I just wanted people to be aware that this change is not applicable for a big part of the workforce. I was trying to make sure people saw that their neighbors bowl would still be empty so to say.
treefrog@lemm.ee 1 year ago
This is Elon’s argument. My auto workers have to drive to work so you should too!
Oh, and keep buying my cars while you’re at it!
HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 year ago
I find this quite surprising. When I’m working from home during the winter, I’m heating a lot of the house that would normally be unheated.
I would have assumed that bringing multiple people together into a single heated space would have been more energy efficient
aggelalex@lemmy.world 1 year ago
There’s so many other things to consider, including e.g. traffic
HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 year ago
Yes, of course. But I’m calling out the one factor that they specifically talk about
CustodialTeapot@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This is based in the US. I imagine a lot of that also comes from air con, very long commutes and other wasted office energy use.
HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 year ago
From the article > The main causes of remote workers’ reduced emissions were less office energy use, as well as fewer emissions from a daily commute.
Again - I'm really surprised that net energy use is less for distributed workers (setting aside commmute energy use).
whitecapstromgard@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
This is such a no-brainer that I’m surprised the climate crowd are not advocating more aggressively for it.
ringwraithfish@kbin.social 1 year ago
Something like 70% of greenhouse gasses are produced by 100 companies globally. This is like using a cup to empty an Olympic sized pool: yes, it does something, but not enough.
We need to maintain focus on the big produces and affect change there first and foremost.
treefrog@lemm.ee 1 year ago
It’s their products causing it. Cutting down on gas burned because we focus on more people working from home is focusing on big producers.
Ask yourself this, aside from real estate investors, who is most likely to lobby against legislation that incentives work from home? Car companies (Elon already is) and gas producers I’m sure are on the list right?
whitecapstromgard@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
What are those companies doing? They are selling stuff to people.