Bosses mean it this time: Return to the office or get a new job! — As office occupancy rates stagnate, employers are giving up on perks and turning to threats

L4sBot@lemmy.worldmod to Technology@lemmy.world – 432 points –
washingtonpost.com

Bosses mean it this time: Return to the office or get a new job! — As office occupancy rates stagnate, employers are giving up on perks and turning to threats::undefined

119

You are viewing a single comment
View all comments

At this point businesses have two options:

  • Bite the bullet, terminate lease agreements and pay the fines associated, then advertise yourself as a full remote company and attract global talent.
  • Be penny wise and pound foolish, stomp your feet, slowly hemmorage the best employees until you're left with people whose only talent is playing office politics.

We'll see how this plays out in the long run, it wouldn't be out of character for the owner class to start needling their pet politicians to devalue currency even more to put those pesky workers in their place.

There is another option:

  • Downsize the office to better fit with the number of people who do actually want to be in the office, either full or part time, and don't cause a huge ruckus about people who prefer to work remotely.

At my job, most people are in the office 2-3 days a week, but there are a few who are there nearly every day. We also have some people who are remote/WFH, including a few who are remote even though they live very near by.

owner class to start needling their pet politicians to devalue currency

Literally no capital investment firm would ever do that. This severely weakens their positions for growth via M&A and limits their ability to globalize trade.

Says a person that doesn't know the difference between "you're" and "your". Not very persuasive.

I see no counter-arguments in your reply.

Says a person that doesn't know the difference between "you're" and "your". Not very persuasive.

My brother in Christ, there is a way to correct someone’s syntax. This is not the way.

Not very persuasive.

Your sentence fragment invalidates your entire argument.

The first sentence is also a sentence fragment and the period should be placed before the ending quotation marks.

Does the period in quotation mark rule applies to quotes? I don't think it does, but this stuff always confuses me.

It actually might be correct they way they did it since they were quoting a word rather than a complete sentence. It is indeed confusing. I figured if I were wrong, someone might correct me and I'd learn something.

"not very persuasive" is not a sentence fragment. Sentences need a subject, verb, and a complete thought.

"Don't do that" has an implied subject of (you). "Not very persuasive" shares the same type implied subject and is a complete sentence.

Bonus fun fact, the shortest complete sentence in the English language is "I am" but not "I'm" because contractions are inherently dependent.

https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-an-implied-subject#:~:text=Implied%20subjects%20occur%20when%20a,the%20subject%20is%20not%20mentioned.

"Don't do that" is a correct imperative sentence, which as your link says does not have a subject. "Not very persuasive" is not imperative and is indeed a sentence fragment.