this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
520 points (95.5% liked)

Work Reform

9436 readers
230 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 99 points 8 months ago (22 children)

That’s part of it. Another part is middle management can’t function without seeing you. Finally, it’s not worth it to a company to maintain a lease on a building if nobody works there and it’s not easy getting out of those leases.

[–] triclops6@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I agree with most of this except the lease is a sunk cost, making people come in based on a variable that won't change is bad decision making, the discussion should be made independently of lease. I agree some managers think this way, it's usually the ones who could benefit from remedial business finance classes.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Yes and no. It's more like a trap that the company is trapped in. It's the corporate equivalent of having to keep renting an apartment you don't live in anymore and can't sub-let. The sunk cost fallacy applies, but also it's a case of "we're stuck with this and we're going to USE it even if it kills our wage slaves."

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The larger issue may be that companies occupying the buildings supports interests of the owning class, and so its influence is being applied accordingly to shape the larger social forces.

load more comments (19 replies)