- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1343437
Archived version: https://archive.ph/hK7Z7
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230811205213/https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/11/80percent-of-bosses-say-they-regret-earlier-return-to-office-plans.html
But, and here’s my big issue with that, that $16,000 a year per employee is the same cost whether the employee is there or not. You’re not saving money by demanding the employee occupy your already-leased dead space in the daytime. You’re not even preventing the loss of money. It’s the same cost (minus a bit for heating etc) whether a given employee is at the office, at home, commuting, sleeping, or attending an interview at a job where people know this.
Suggesting the location of someone’s ass is somehow related to rent you already have to pay … is just stupid.
No no no, you see, if the employee isn’t there, they could rent out that space instead, but they don’t. By getting the employee back into the office, they’re eliminating those opportunity costs! /s
On a more serious note, saving costs could be a reasonable argument if the company were compensating the employee for their increased cost of living when working from home - electricity, heating, water, internet etc. at home also have to be paid somehow. However, I kind of doubt that a significant number of the companies we’re talking about here actually does that in the first place.