Access to this page has been denied
thehill.com
px-captcha

Wasn’t quite sure what community to post this…

A recent EnhancV survey of 1,000 full-time U.S. workers subject to new or stricter return-to-office policies found that 72 percent suspect these mandates are really a voluntary attrition strategy — a strategy by their own employers to make them quit their jobs.

The damage is strategic, not merely emotional. Baylor University’s reporting on office mandates and brain drain found that firms with mandates faced greater turnover among women, senior employees, managers and high-skilled workers, while job vacancy duration increased and hiring rates declined. In other words, the people with the most options are often the first to leave. The employees who remain may not be the most committed — they may simply be the least mobile.

  • ThePantser@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    62·
    4 days ago

    A close person to me is sueing their employer for ADA violations because they became disabled during the pandemic while working full time WFH but now the office is RTO and they won’t give them an exception to continue to WFH which is a clear ADA violation because they could do their job 100% without the accommodation when they worked for over 5 years remote.

    Having oversight is not an essiental function of a job if you have ever in the past been able to accomplish the work 100% remotely.

    • isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      10·
      4 days ago

      We need to pass a law requiring employers to pay twice the payroll tax contribution for any office worker that they require to work in the office.

      • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
        91·
        4 days ago

        Not only that. Travel time should count as work time, with full reimbursement of all travel costs: gas, tickets,…

        If they really feel that added cost is worth it? Let them.

        Takes you three hours of travel time to get to work and back? That counts into your 8h workday, so you’ll both be paid full salary for it and get to work “only” 5h at the office.

        Most should quickly turn away from the idea.

        • alternategait@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          3 days ago

          My workplace requires everyone within a 50 mile radius to RTO. Because it’s a crowded metro area where a lot of workers had the same mandate at the same time, traffic is now absurd. At the outer ends of that radius, it could take well over 2 hours to drive in (and of course the further out you are, the less likely you are to be able to take public transit it). I bet paying an extra 4 hours a day would shrink that radius real quick.

        • VibeSurgeon@piefed.socialEnglish
          3·
          4 days ago

          Not only that. Travel time should count as work time, with full reimbursement of all travel costs: gas, tickets,…

          The obvious effect this would have would be to make it so that employers stop hiring anyone living X distance away from the office, which I don’t actually think would be a good thing.

          • ChogChog@lemmy.world
            4·
            3 days ago

            My initial reaction is the same, but I could also see it having the positive effect of making companies lobby for better mixed zoning.

            On the other hand, you know good and well who’s going to “invest” in the property around their buildings. Then it’s just company towns with extra steps…

          • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
            21·
            3 days ago

            They can: hire locally (not a bad thing), move out of overpriced areas (also not a bad thing), pay/find closer housing for employees and negotiate better prices (also not a bad thing) or just make remoteable jobs remote.

            All positive consequences of… Having to pay your employeea for their time spent for the company.

          • raze2012@lemmy.world
            11·
            3 days ago

            Doubtful. If they live in an urban area, that means they need to up their compensation to compete with local talent in the city (because housing is more expensive). Whereas an employee in a suburb commuting might take a smaller pay. The extra few thousand dollars of stipend wouldn’t cancel this dynamic out.

            • VibeSurgeon@piefed.socialEnglish
              1·
              3 days ago

              In that scenario, the pay kind of shakes out to be the same between the worker living closer in the city and the suburban commuter, if the pay is going to be lower for the suburban commuter to have them remain competitive.

              So are they even really getting paid for their commute time, in that case? It seems like extra steps to arrive at the same end result.

              • raze2012@lemmy.world
                1·
                3 days ago

                So are they even really getting paid for their commute time, in that case?

                Pay is always about negotiation and leverage. This stipend won’t change those fundamental facts. If it’s a perk that would win over someone who’d otherwise walk, that’s a win for them, right?

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        3 days ago

        And then they’ll cut everyone else’s salary in half.

        Pay is a tricky flexible thing that varies per person and has a million exceptions. Laws on salary generally don’t work; politicians have taken us for a ride.

        The only thing that will protect our pay regardless of inflation and legalese BS is to change the supply and demand equilibrium with a union.

      • TarantulaFudge@startrek.website
        1·
        3 days ago

        I had a friend come stay with us all the way from Germany and I was astonished how much better employment laws are there. He said he wanted to switch jobs and he went on an internet portal and clicked a button and they offer complete assistance with changing jobs including paying for school to change to entirely different trade, job placement assistance etc. I couldn’t believe it