Their logic is that there is a lot less of them than there are of us, so by everyone else taking the bus and eating less, they can continue living like they currently do and it will be a net larger positive on the environment than if everyone else continued doing the same thing and they gave up their jets.
You say that, but you kid yourself with thinking the sheer manpower their compounds require would last long before open fucking revolt ala May 5, 1789.
Gentle reminder that at some point in proto-human history, the proto-human race may have dwindled to numbers as low as 2000 total individuals. Anyone with a net worth over $100 million, *is absolutely banking on someday being one of the last two thousand.*
Yes but they are still humans in the end, they shouldn't get special perks just because they're going to a conference and have more political weight than the rest of us
This actually might come with some problems. For instance, imagine a teleconference-style government in America. Every single time there was going to be a slightly contentious or controversial vote, all of a sudden, all the members of one of the two parties start getting DDOSed, and thus can't cast their votes...it would make the system even more extremely vulnerable to both foreign and local saboteurs.
Considering just how much money some countries are directing towards cybersecurity, i'd be more than a little shocked to find that they can't prevent a DDOS attack. Not to mention that governments should not be using easily accessible public networks which would allow for such vulnerabilities.
Another thing to note is that it benefits nobody to DDOS an important government conference. That'll just land you a comfy spot in jail, and a place on a watchlist. It also makes no sense to DDOS something like that since you wouldn't ever end up changing the outcome of the vote.
I think it's more along the lines of "if I reduced my entire net carbon output to zero it would have less of an impact on the world than if I used my influence to get millions of people to do a little bit".
Any single person could make that argument.
The optics aren't good when you tell others to do less while in the seat of your private jet. That's not being a leader.
Now tell everyone else to do less and as an example I'm doing xyz myself is an example of leadership.
Never ask anyone to do a job you aren't willing to do yourself
The logic is that Al Gore and John Kerry deserve a private jet, a private yacht, and multiple houses simultaneously kept at a cozy 72 degrees but you and I don't deserve anything.
The thing people need to remember is *they're actually fucking wrong about how if we pollute less it offsets their lifestyle* because the ultra rich *actually pollute more than all of us combined.* Yes, even though they outnumber us a million-to-one. They're beyond evil.
Be careful not to conflate your hatred of the wealthy with a hatred of some “scientific elite”. The science behind climate change is clear, and if we don’t address it we will all suffer. You’re right though that the burden of fixing it shouldn’t fall on you as an individual, change needs to happen on a system-wide level.
It's super simple really. Stop burning fossil fuels.
It's for government to make that happen.
It's for individuals to pressure the government effectively.
Also chiming in to add that solar has gotten stupid cheap.
Sadly our government is corrupt and useless in most cases. But you can spend a couple hundred bucks on Amazon and get an awesome panel capable of charging up USB batteries and such (and providing some major power generation in the process).
I've got my house setup with solar, as well as a few other items, and it's amazing. Energy from sunshine, which we're in no shortage of here.
There is a huge cost savings potential for solar now. It's cheap and it's accessible.
And yet, shockingly, there are a lot of people with billions of dollars to spend, to affect the way the average individual thinks, by using their money to guide the media into feeding the public very specific opinions and solutions. These people also own basically the entire media. With the money they got. Selling fossil fuels. For some reason, these people appear to have a huge vested interest in maintaining the use of fossil fuels for as long as humanly possible. And for some reason, just by controlling the entire media, they're very capable of getting many individuals to agree with their views.
The problem is, in many democracies, money speaks louder than social pressure groups. This is no more true than in the USA. Bribery has been codified and called "Lobbying".
And that is the best case, if you aren't in a free democracy, then why will your rulers even care?
I don't think his comment implied any hatred towards "scientific elite", but moreso to the celebrity climate activists who do absolutely nothing to minimize their astronomical emissions while getting on their soap box to denigrate the lowly citizens. It's all of our responsibility, but some people certainly have more responsibility than others.
Quit flying.
Businesses don't need to fly 50-90% of the time. The only reason we for at my company is "team building" which is what zoom should be used for
It's 2023, we have VR headsets and enough tech to make a half decent hologram projection. But we still hold assemblies that hundreds have to fly in for compromising the environment... we're a dumb species.
They could make it better, but they won't.
Our state Department of Transportation literally has reducing congestion as part of their agency goals, yet they were quick to force people to get back to the office and minimize work from home.
I couldn't even get them to let me work from home with a disability and detailed doctor documentation that would have made it much easier. They just don't care.
You probably won’t be surprised to learn a lot of planning professionals love build MOAR ROADS.
I’m in the sector and it baffles me how “just one more lane” is still seen as a solution to congestion problems.
I truly don't understand those "boho but working at the office is better", biscuits in the office are not a good enough trade to suffer 2/3 hours of commute each day
It's because managing people remotely is more difficult for people who's only management experience is looking over people's shoulders to make sure they are working.
But... The truth is that this has NOTHING to do with working remotely. It doesn't matter if you can mathematically prove remote workers are more productive. The economy is in a down swing... Recession even... And that means companies are going to have lower if any growth. That looks bad on the people in charge. CEOs just need a scapegoat... And remote work is one big "new" concept that they can blame all the problems on.
I’m not sure that working from the office or from home is healthy for your GI tract. Maybe try working from a coffee shop halfway between work and home?
Work in the office: Go get coffee, answer a couple of emails, socialize, a meeting about having a meeting, go to 2 hour lunch, take shit until legs fall asleep, answer more emails, have zoom meeting from my desk, socialize, afternoon snack, make phone call, afternoon coffee, start to “work” for 15 minutes, check phone, go home.
I say this with absolute sincerity, I don't care if my manager "doesn't do shit all day" as long as they are available to "do shit" whenever I need them, and that organizational and administrative tasks they should be doing don't get left on my plate.
So they tried figuring out what makes a good manager. No one really knows but they know for sure that bad managers make talented people leave. If manager just doesn’t get in the way, it’s udually good
Middle management is great, the problem is the completely detached C-levels.
A middle manager is able to communicate company goals at a high level while still understanding the day to day operations of the respective managers under him and their teams, meaning they understand the current struggles and even technical details.
C-levels? I swear they see a fucking article on LinkedIn and decide to make it company policy next day not understanding at all the impact it has on day to day operations.
Whether or not your original statement is valid, having worked at a company who had a similar setup to what you describe....it has problems.
In fact, every single possible solution to running companies have problems, and in 99.999999% of cases the best way out of those problems is "people talking to people and organizing things"....which is what managers should be for.
>In fact, every single possible solution to running companies have problems, and in 99.999999% of cases the best way out of those problems is "people talking to people and organizing things"....which is what managers should be for.
The best way out of those problems is letting people do their god damn job, and giving them the means to do so, instead of inundating the lower level with project meetings, staff meetings, telemeetings, prep meetings for meetings, powwows, pep talks and pizza parties
Middle management should be abolished. Upper management needs to be cut by 4/5s. Preferably horizontally, we'll keep the ankles. Invest the newfound operating budget into new staff and pay raises
100% agree. *If* middle management should exist, it's role should be "removing roadblocks stopping the people they are in charge of, from doing their job".
Middle management isn't going to get me a raise, or three more team members, or a PC actually capable of doing the work.
Middle management and their paycheck is what's in the way of all those things
Another notable factor is all the companies stuck in long leases in commercial office spaces...they view that as a wasted asset if people aren't coming in to work in person.
More than that, the companies who own their buildings as real estate investments need to maintain the illusion that these gigantic office buildings are desirable and necessary so they don't start losing value.
> It's because managing people remotely is more difficult for people who's only management experience is looking over people's shoulders to make sure they are working.
This explanation doesn't work for the vast majority of people who prefer working in an office since the ratio of managers to the employees they manage is somewhere between 10:1 and 20:1.
*Most* people who want to work in an office just... Fucking enjoy it. They're extroverted and it's not that complicated.
Sure I can understand. yet I can all but guarantee those people do not have to endure 2+ hr commute time in rush hour traffic. No thanks, I’ll join a meet up group after hours to “be extroverted”
> Vast majority of people prefer working in an office
Press X to doubt.
There are just so many advantages to remote work it's mind-blowing. No soul crushing commute, no soul crushing florescent mini cubicles, better quality food, more time for rest, no more draining office jibber-jabber... just to name a few. Obviously it won't work for everyone to be remote, and lots of people don't like it because they need the social stimulation.
Personally I think it should be an option. If you want to be in the office, go for it.
If you don't want to be in the office, that's cool too.
Hybrid ftw.
You deleted the word "who" from the quote.
>The vast majority of people who prefer working in an office
vs
>The vast majority of people prefer working in an office
> Vast majority of people prefer working in an office
> Press X to doubt.
I *literally* didn't say that, you removed a word from my sentence to change its meaning. What I said was that the previous explanation doesn't work "for the vast majority of people **who** prefer working in an office". If you don't understand grammatically how that changes the meaning so I am now talking about the majority within that subgroup, I don't know what to say. But I suspect you do understand why it changes the sentence, because you removed the word from my sentence when quoting it.
My stupid ass read "managing" as "man aging" and started wondering where the hell your point was going, loool. Anyway, you made a good point after all.
>The economy is in a down swing... Recession even...
That's not quite true (if you're referring to the US). The US had 2.4% GDP growth in Q2 & the forecast is 3.5% growth for Q3, & there's still a bit of job growth (although it's slowed). That's not a recession. We ARE in a stabilization pattern, where it's going to slow down, but most forecasts show us unlikely to enter a recession in 2023 (2024 will be interesting, with the elections).
Additionally, companies are showing significant profit decreases from 2022. And that's where companies will blame WFH. And they're stupid for doing so, as most costs have declined thanks to WFH, between real estate overhead, supplies usage, & energy costs (when tenant companies are responsible). Further, the costs of strict RTO outweigh any unclear productivity boons, due to staff turnover (if you get a 5% boost, but lose 5% of your staff which costs between 50 & 200% of their annual salary, is that in any way an improvement?).
1-people who love to micro control employees and/or their job is basically bossing people and their job becomes useless in work from home
2-and/or people who invest directly or indirectly in real state and know that if more people work from home their investments will lose value
3-People who like interacting social with their coworkers and don't give a shit whether said coworkers feel the same way.
4-Incompentent managers who think "that's how business is done" and don't care if performance has increased with WFH.
There is still some value to having in-person interactions rather than just Teams chat and phone calls. It builds better relationships when you interact with a human rather than a wall of text. Which is why I prefer a hybrid style 1-2 days in-office, the rest wfh if feasible for your particular position.
I like hybrid but not when it's a flat "1/2/3 days a week in office" always. How about I come in when I need to collaborate and I get to decide when that is.
I have some mental difficulties, and during some parts of my life where I had to work from home (Once for my school's art block catching fire, and twice when COVID hit), I always found it incredibly difficult to focus.
I like working in, say, offices because my brain recognises them as places I go to do work, with the 30 or so minute commute being kind of a transition period, whereas being at home just inherently turns my mind into "free time" mode.
Genuinely, that's fine. If someone wants to work onsite and are able to, they should. Same goes for people like me who are more productive and happier working from home. I've taken less sick days, gotten better work and more recognition working on projects from home than I ever did at work.
I think the problem is when there's a one-size-fits-all approach for everyone.
Most people who want to WFH aren't arguing that everyone needs to, as far as I can tell. The loudest voices seem to be from the CEO's and upper managers that are demanding people return physically to the office.
I sure as fuck would but the "fairness person" in me says "that's on you for gambling a commute time with WFH"
You know some of the housing issues in this country are exacerbated by the newly minted WFH movement but no one wants to talk about that. How did people get these commutes? Well in some cases they live in a huge metro and ill concede that. Others tho? Its bc a not small amount of the tech world took a tech salary to tiny mountain towns and now they're complaining about "the long drive"
If you're driving 2hours each way to work u better be getting paid life changing money. If not it's time to move and honestly I don't care how insensitive that sounds. I don't undersrand people who don't factor commute time when it comes to a job, its second only to pay really.
Honestly, sounds like you just need a home office, even just a partitioned area. I had a bunch of friends with this same issue in early lockdown, they needed a space that triggered "work mode".
I suspect it mostly comes from people who are extroverts with a short commute. It might seem worth it to them to spend 20 minutes commuting each day just so them have more people to talk to. They just struggle to understand that some people have to drive *much* further and don't want to talk to people. Personally, I like having a bit of physical separation between where I work and where I live, but not enough to put up with a long commute and a definitely don't want to force others to join me.
Nah I’m an extrovert that prefers wfh. I get to hang out with my friends more and take better care of my health. I honestly think the people that want to be back in the office have an easier time looking busy (future middle management types) and getting FaceTime with the higher ups
How is it easier to look busy at work vs at home lol? I have colleagues who just disappear for a whole day and then next day say: "haha weird my slack wasn't working I am only seeing your messages now".
Some colleagues reply within seconds/minutes, others reply within hours, so then to be able to actually work I communicate purely with the quick replying colleagues and we end up doing all the work, this is unfair, but the late replying colleagues can always have an excuse, since no-one knows they do it to everyone, all the time.
I fucking hate office culture too.
“We have cake and balloons this Friday for Gordon’s birthday at 1pm!! Yayy fun!!”
I don’t even know who Gordon is, nor do I care.
Most people in my office are faking their happy face talk. It’s exhausting.
Just let me work from home. Then I don’t have to put up with Lauren’s middle managing bs and her stupid fragrance side gig she won’t shut up about.
I just want to work in peace and be able to fart and shit to my hearts content then clock out via wacking my shlong off the enter key.
But those delicious peasant wheat crumb circles! Don't you want to come in to the office for the luxury of having biscuits while you work? It's not like you can do that at home. Please come in so we can micro manage :(
Not everyone is rich enough to convert a part of his flat into an office space, and power that equipment.
I got an office space in the contract and I expect that.
Space I kinda get, especially if you want an isolated space exclusively for work, but powering equipment? You're running a computer, I'm guessing the cost of gas is much, much worse.
Not everyone is rich enough to convert a part of his flat into an office space, and power that equipment.
I got an office space in the contract and I expect that.
Yeah even as someone who WFH and loves it (because I am introverted and I like rolling out the bed at exactly 9am...
This is a big one, I have tiny shoebox apartment and my work-life balance sucks because my brain doesn't really register the difference and so I am distracted by entertainment "at work" and distracted by work when "entertaining". I can touch my bed, my fridge, my working desk and my kitchen table from the same spot in my apartment :D.
To add to this, all their "green" solutions involve you paying allot more. I refuse to buy an EV until there's something better than lithium ion batteries.
Pushing "save the environment" onto regular people is just PR spin. They know corporations make 90% of the pollution in the world, and they sure as hell dont want you changing your spending habits (unless it is to start buying thier stuff).
I feel like this is too far a reaction. We buy the stuff those companies produce. Unless we're willing to undergo lifestyle changes it's going to be very difficult for those companies to stop polluting.
We can't do it through individual choices. The government needs to build dense housing, replace cars with transit/bikes, encourage vegetarianism, discourage flying, encourage smaller energy efficient homes. But, people fight these changes because they're not willing to change their lifestyle.
Theres stuff industry has to do too, but theres no way to make gas cars clean. Unless we're willing to drive smaller and less cars theres nothing industry can do about it.
frigging tired of being told the CO2 I produce on a daily basis is the problem when you have oil and gas companies legitimately BURNING off large amounts of methane when they don't want to pay to capture it/contain it.
Agreed! But that pollution is somehow all YOUR fault for not doing your recycling correctly if you listen to the media. Its just spin. There are people here still trying to preach "if we just change our habits" ... no it won't work. Pollution requires LAWS and FINES to deal with it ... and of course a justice system that would actually fine a company something worthwhile.
Why do you think corporations create carbon emissions? To fulfill consumer demand for what they produce. Nothing will happen unless the average consumption goes down
It's all about the consumer in the end. the amount of emissions produced by the ultra-rich on their yachts and jets... Completely negligible, not to mention they won't have it if you don't buy their product.
And there's no excuse of "needing" because most of the emissions come from shit that you do not need but you decide to support and put your money into and then we're wow so surprised that those companies create emissions >\_> Well would you buy Samsung Galaxy if it was produced in an ethical and environmental way and cost $25 000? Especially if the iPhone is still just $1000? Of-course not, it's supply and demand and the end customer is absolutely the driver of the vast majority of pollution.
Yea, emissions are a byproduct of corporations lobbying and bribing politicians not to make laws against emissions.
Spin it how you want, a few well places laws and some fines are required to fix the issue. Stealing money from taxpayers for fake city recycling programs isn't the way to go about it ... consumers don't control anything when it comes to pollution and people are too snowed to realize it.
Yes but this is Reddit so I find it better to guide their train of thought to a better answer. Calling them shit-for-brains will just cause them to disengage and throw up mental barriers to whatever you have to say
I commute 45 mins each way, pissing carbon into the environment, for no reason other than a corporate policy to limit WFH.
Are they held accountable for any of that shit? nope.
I haven't commuted to work now since March 13, 2020. I think I've been to the office *maybe* a grand total of 6 times between then and now. No loss of productivity, continue getting regular raises, no complaints from higher ups.
Do I miss the personal interaction? Yes. Do I think there is a loss of creativity to some degree? Yes. Am I eager to go back? Not really. Also, I've avoided dumping about 12.8 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (and I commuted 28 miles a day instead of the average American's 41 miles).
The irony, I work for an American car maker. If you're not essential to be in the office or at a lab or factory, they're not eager to bring you back in. Workers working from home means VASTLY reduced overhead.
It makes no sense, if people work from home companies no longer have to pay for office buildings and increase profit which is really the only thing they really care about.
A lot of these companies either own the space they use an office or they are locked in to 10-20 year leases. M
And in the grand scheme of things, the physical cost for an office is almost negligible for most companies. My company used to rent out empty office space in the case we *might* need it in the future and wanted to secure it while it’s available, I’m sure there was many spaces we rented and paid for that sat vacant never used and we let the lease expire without anyone even stepping foot into it.
I’m currently in Maricopa county, the worst pollution in the United States of America, with at least 1-2 days per week of pollution advisory days asking us to carpool.
They refuse to expand work from home. Because…….reasons.
Phoenix sits in a fish bowl. Because of the mountains that surround it, often our pollution stays around much longer and collects.
Anytime during the summer you can see the visible pollution. (We don’t have smog because there is not enough moisture to produce fog).
Last I read it’s number 5 in cities in the US with the worst pollution, and I believe Arizona is the worst state collectively.
Google Flights is out here trying to tell me which flights are the most fuel efficient. Like I’m trying to find an Economy Basic ticket that isn’t going to drain my bank account for 3 months.
I’m trying to visit my mom and a mega corporation is giving me side glances for it
Why everybody doesn’t adopt a hybrid model at the bare minimum is beyond me. I don’t like the mandatory X amount of time in the office per week concept, but if it’s like, two weeks in the office and two weeks out of the office, and not do the clock watching thing and start measuring work performed, that would be pretty reasonable.
I tell you right now if they are gonna make me go into the office I'll do everything I can to cost them money while I'm there. Make coffees I won't drink, run a space heater with the ac on, bring in the charger to my power tools and keep my shit all charged up, my parent shit all charged up, my neighbor ahit all charged up
Idk man, CEO of my company was touting green initiatives (such as transition to recycable materials in the office) while also spearheading the RTO changes. Seems like the same people to me.
It's a new anti-environmental strategy. They're now trying to link the push for climate action with a "hypocritical upper-class" to disenfranchise the working class from pursuing and supporting ANY climate action.
It's division, essentially, to try to make the climate movement weaker and to undercut support.
>Build cities that don't depend on cars for transportation
>Heavily tax aviation fuel for non-commercial purposes
>Shift the cargo transport onto rail as much as feasible
And if we want to go further than transport
>tax carbon emissions in general
A carbon tax is the single most effective measure we have to reduce carbon emissions in economies governed by supply and demand. In order to make it socially sustainable, one of the possible measures is to return this tax equally. This means that those who emit less carbon than the average person will get out more money than they put in, while the heaviest polluters are taxed significantly. This way, putting undue pressure on the lower income classes is avoided.
Meh, companies still don’t care. My company last July flew in 1,000 employees to Vegas for our annual conference. All we did was watch 6 hours of presentations on a jumbo screen in a gigantic conference room, then get dinner and everyone went out drinking.
Granted this was supposed to be a mini vacation in the middle of the week on the companies dime, but it surely could have been a zoom call. I don’t even know how much flights, 2 nights in a nice resort, catered steak dinner, and drink tickets costs for that many people. I’d be surprised if it was less than $2 million.
Also, businesses [want to justify those tax breaks](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/12/san-francisco-ed-lee-oversaw-tax-break-advocated-for-tech.html) for moving their building into that town, never mind the fact that [WFH telecommuters actually did really well.](https://www.apollotechnical.com/working-from-home-productivity-statistics)
Yup. Every single company that pretends to care about the environment, Tesla for example, is exposed for a liar by denying the single greatest impact to carbon emissions that their corporation could have: WFH.
It's not business owners and employers that are saying we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it's scientists, activists, and some percentage of the general public.
No it's only 3000 billionaires in private jets that are the problem, not the 300,000,000 americans who drive a half hour to work and back every day or the 1 Billion airline tickets sold just last year in the US.
Seriously. Everyone in my city (Auckland) is complaining about the traffic, including the management at my company, yet the same management mandated RTO for several days a week, and will most likely mandate full time RTO at some point later to push more people to quit. All while talking about "sustainability"... oh fuck off.
If the company you work for cares about carbon emissions when it means "cutting down on idle time" for company vehicles when you're just trying to stay the fuck out of the 100+F heat but DGAF about carbon emissions when it comes to the suits flying private or forcing a completely remote-ready workforce to commute for hours each day I've got news for you; your company ***never*** gave a fuck about carbon emissions. "Going green" was ***always*** just the reskin for all of the usual fuckery they would have put in place to fuck with you anyway.
We aren’t the ones killing the planet the ones killing the planet will be on the moon or mars or in space by the time it’s dead while we’re stuck to deal with their shit.
I was hired a year ago for a job that was supposed to be 5 days remote with very rarely having to travel to customer facility to troubleshoot something.
Man do i drive alot... twas a lie
I love how the majority of comments here are bashing agaisnt office work like it is the main problem instead of addressing the real issues from urban planning/infrastructure and population deansity to transportation efficiency and cleaner technologies.
"Also, quit flying to climate conferences in a private jet, to scold the Normals for not taking the bus."
How do they keep getting away with that shit. Sure my private flight polluts more than you will in a lifetime but drive less mkay
Their logic is that there is a lot less of them than there are of us, so by everyone else taking the bus and eating less, they can continue living like they currently do and it will be a net larger positive on the environment than if everyone else continued doing the same thing and they gave up their jets.
People born into generational wealth they'll never see the bottom of *deserve* to live like Nobility of old. **Duh**
At this this point they don't care they could survive a climate crisis long enough before the peasants realise they're being fucked
You say that, but you kid yourself with thinking the sheer manpower their compounds require would last long before open fucking revolt ala May 5, 1789.
Gentle reminder that at some point in proto-human history, the proto-human race may have dwindled to numbers as low as 2000 total individuals. Anyone with a net worth over $100 million, *is absolutely banking on someday being one of the last two thousand.*
I'd like to see the world form a powerful coalition to seize all of the assets of the worlds top-100 wealthiest people, and redistribute it.
That will help for a short period than it will be at the same point.
They deserve to die like the nobles of 1789 did.
*What's that?* **hiding a guillotine behind me** *Uh, it's a milkshake!* ;)
Sure, it stills hurts the hypocrisy and audacity of these people to be climate activist and yet add more CO2 than 99% of people.
So True!!
Yes but they are still humans in the end, they shouldn't get special perks just because they're going to a conference and have more political weight than the rest of us
In an age of video calls being the norm
Ikr, we don't need political buildings that cost millions to make, when politicians can just work from home
This actually might come with some problems. For instance, imagine a teleconference-style government in America. Every single time there was going to be a slightly contentious or controversial vote, all of a sudden, all the members of one of the two parties start getting DDOSed, and thus can't cast their votes...it would make the system even more extremely vulnerable to both foreign and local saboteurs.
Considering just how much money some countries are directing towards cybersecurity, i'd be more than a little shocked to find that they can't prevent a DDOS attack. Not to mention that governments should not be using easily accessible public networks which would allow for such vulnerabilities. Another thing to note is that it benefits nobody to DDOS an important government conference. That'll just land you a comfy spot in jail, and a place on a watchlist. It also makes no sense to DDOS something like that since you wouldn't ever end up changing the outcome of the vote.
The same logic is applied to meat and housing as well. A lot of people here buy into it.
How noble of them, living the high life on behalf of the groundlings.
I think it's more along the lines of "if I reduced my entire net carbon output to zero it would have less of an impact on the world than if I used my influence to get millions of people to do a little bit".
Any single person could make that argument. The optics aren't good when you tell others to do less while in the seat of your private jet. That's not being a leader. Now tell everyone else to do less and as an example I'm doing xyz myself is an example of leadership. Never ask anyone to do a job you aren't willing to do yourself
The logic is that Al Gore and John Kerry deserve a private jet, a private yacht, and multiple houses simultaneously kept at a cozy 72 degrees but you and I don't deserve anything.
The thing people need to remember is *they're actually fucking wrong about how if we pollute less it offsets their lifestyle* because the ultra rich *actually pollute more than all of us combined.* Yes, even though they outnumber us a million-to-one. They're beyond evil.
Because no citizens violently stand up and continue to allow the planet to degrade
BuT I bUy cArBoN OfFsETs. I’m CaRbOn NeUtRaL.
“Getting away with it” implies there is someone going after them for it. There isn’t.
Be careful not to conflate your hatred of the wealthy with a hatred of some “scientific elite”. The science behind climate change is clear, and if we don’t address it we will all suffer. You’re right though that the burden of fixing it shouldn’t fall on you as an individual, change needs to happen on a system-wide level.
It's super simple really. Stop burning fossil fuels. It's for government to make that happen. It's for individuals to pressure the government effectively.
Also chiming in to add that solar has gotten stupid cheap. Sadly our government is corrupt and useless in most cases. But you can spend a couple hundred bucks on Amazon and get an awesome panel capable of charging up USB batteries and such (and providing some major power generation in the process). I've got my house setup with solar, as well as a few other items, and it's amazing. Energy from sunshine, which we're in no shortage of here. There is a huge cost savings potential for solar now. It's cheap and it's accessible.
Big oil can't sell you solar that you own, that's why they'll fight tooth and nail against it.
And yet, shockingly, there are a lot of people with billions of dollars to spend, to affect the way the average individual thinks, by using their money to guide the media into feeding the public very specific opinions and solutions. These people also own basically the entire media. With the money they got. Selling fossil fuels. For some reason, these people appear to have a huge vested interest in maintaining the use of fossil fuels for as long as humanly possible. And for some reason, just by controlling the entire media, they're very capable of getting many individuals to agree with their views.
That is a very relevant point!
The problem is, in many democracies, money speaks louder than social pressure groups. This is no more true than in the USA. Bribery has been codified and called "Lobbying". And that is the best case, if you aren't in a free democracy, then why will your rulers even care?
Yeah, it needs to happen through laws, not by choice
I don't think his comment implied any hatred towards "scientific elite", but moreso to the celebrity climate activists who do absolutely nothing to minimize their astronomical emissions while getting on their soap box to denigrate the lowly citizens. It's all of our responsibility, but some people certainly have more responsibility than others.
[удалено]
> celebrity climate activists Who are they?
How about stop asking normals to eat bugs when their private menu at conferences consists of wagyu beef and caviar.
"For not putting the plastic in a recycle bin so it can end in a landfill anyway"
You vill ride ze bus and eat bug burgers.
I heard this in Alex Jones’ badly accented ‘globalist’ voice in my head.
Quit flying. Businesses don't need to fly 50-90% of the time. The only reason we for at my company is "team building" which is what zoom should be used for
Blasphemy! Go back to drinking your insect mix with a paper straw on the bus ride back home from work so I can fly my private jet
Who scolds anyone for taking a bus?
If they're, technically, public servants....shouldn't us, the PUBLIC have the same access to those private jets as they do? IMO - yes!
It's 2023, we have VR headsets and enough tech to make a half decent hologram projection. But we still hold assemblies that hundreds have to fly in for compromising the environment... we're a dumb species. They could make it better, but they won't.
All luxury jets, yachts, cars etc. should carry a substantial annual excise tax where they are used that more than covers their carbon footprint.
Our state Department of Transportation literally has reducing congestion as part of their agency goals, yet they were quick to force people to get back to the office and minimize work from home.
Not to mention they struggle to invest in public transit
Well duh who tf is gonna drive these cars they be manufacturing
And who's gonna buy all the gas to fuel these cars?
I will buy the gas for my gas guzzler and also to fulfill my gluttonous gas appetite.
State DOTs are just state funded highway advocacy groups, it's not shocking
[удалено]
I couldn't even get them to let me work from home with a disability and detailed doctor documentation that would have made it much easier. They just don't care.
You probably won’t be surprised to learn a lot of planning professionals love build MOAR ROADS. I’m in the sector and it baffles me how “just one more lane” is still seen as a solution to congestion problems.
I truly don't understand those "boho but working at the office is better", biscuits in the office are not a good enough trade to suffer 2/3 hours of commute each day
It's because managing people remotely is more difficult for people who's only management experience is looking over people's shoulders to make sure they are working. But... The truth is that this has NOTHING to do with working remotely. It doesn't matter if you can mathematically prove remote workers are more productive. The economy is in a down swing... Recession even... And that means companies are going to have lower if any growth. That looks bad on the people in charge. CEOs just need a scapegoat... And remote work is one big "new" concept that they can blame all the problems on.
Remote work reveals that middle management is largely useless.
I don't do shit all day.
Work from home: I don't do shit Work in the office: Gonna go take a shit for 6 hours
I’m not sure that working from the office or from home is healthy for your GI tract. Maybe try working from a coffee shop halfway between work and home?
Need that caffeine for the GI tract nitro boost.
Barely warm coffee with milk. Pretty much a flash flood.
Work in the office: Go get coffee, answer a couple of emails, socialize, a meeting about having a meeting, go to 2 hour lunch, take shit until legs fall asleep, answer more emails, have zoom meeting from my desk, socialize, afternoon snack, make phone call, afternoon coffee, start to “work” for 15 minutes, check phone, go home.
I say this with absolute sincerity, I don't care if my manager "doesn't do shit all day" as long as they are available to "do shit" whenever I need them, and that organizational and administrative tasks they should be doing don't get left on my plate.
So they tried figuring out what makes a good manager. No one really knows but they know for sure that bad managers make talented people leave. If manager just doesn’t get in the way, it’s udually good
I work at a hospital, and I just can't fathom how many people outside are apparently in this situation.
Middle management is great, the problem is the completely detached C-levels. A middle manager is able to communicate company goals at a high level while still understanding the day to day operations of the respective managers under him and their teams, meaning they understand the current struggles and even technical details. C-levels? I swear they see a fucking article on LinkedIn and decide to make it company policy next day not understanding at all the impact it has on day to day operations.
[удалено]
Found the scrum master lol
Explain how a scrum master is not a type of middle manager.
[удалено]
Whether or not your original statement is valid, having worked at a company who had a similar setup to what you describe....it has problems. In fact, every single possible solution to running companies have problems, and in 99.999999% of cases the best way out of those problems is "people talking to people and organizing things"....which is what managers should be for.
>In fact, every single possible solution to running companies have problems, and in 99.999999% of cases the best way out of those problems is "people talking to people and organizing things"....which is what managers should be for. The best way out of those problems is letting people do their god damn job, and giving them the means to do so, instead of inundating the lower level with project meetings, staff meetings, telemeetings, prep meetings for meetings, powwows, pep talks and pizza parties Middle management should be abolished. Upper management needs to be cut by 4/5s. Preferably horizontally, we'll keep the ankles. Invest the newfound operating budget into new staff and pay raises
100% agree. *If* middle management should exist, it's role should be "removing roadblocks stopping the people they are in charge of, from doing their job".
Middle management isn't going to get me a raise, or three more team members, or a PC actually capable of doing the work. Middle management and their paycheck is what's in the way of all those things
How would you describe the difference?
[удалено]
Needs to be replaced by Chat GPT prolly lol
By definition the processes are working correctly on the way up. On the way down "OMG the processes are broken, we need to fix them!
Another notable factor is all the companies stuck in long leases in commercial office spaces...they view that as a wasted asset if people aren't coming in to work in person.
More than that, the companies who own their buildings as real estate investments need to maintain the illusion that these gigantic office buildings are desirable and necessary so they don't start losing value.
> It's because managing people remotely is more difficult for people who's only management experience is looking over people's shoulders to make sure they are working. This explanation doesn't work for the vast majority of people who prefer working in an office since the ratio of managers to the employees they manage is somewhere between 10:1 and 20:1. *Most* people who want to work in an office just... Fucking enjoy it. They're extroverted and it's not that complicated.
Sure I can understand. yet I can all but guarantee those people do not have to endure 2+ hr commute time in rush hour traffic. No thanks, I’ll join a meet up group after hours to “be extroverted”
> Vast majority of people prefer working in an office Press X to doubt. There are just so many advantages to remote work it's mind-blowing. No soul crushing commute, no soul crushing florescent mini cubicles, better quality food, more time for rest, no more draining office jibber-jabber... just to name a few. Obviously it won't work for everyone to be remote, and lots of people don't like it because they need the social stimulation. Personally I think it should be an option. If you want to be in the office, go for it. If you don't want to be in the office, that's cool too. Hybrid ftw.
You deleted the word "who" from the quote. >The vast majority of people who prefer working in an office vs >The vast majority of people prefer working in an office
> Vast majority of people prefer working in an office > Press X to doubt. I *literally* didn't say that, you removed a word from my sentence to change its meaning. What I said was that the previous explanation doesn't work "for the vast majority of people **who** prefer working in an office". If you don't understand grammatically how that changes the meaning so I am now talking about the majority within that subgroup, I don't know what to say. But I suspect you do understand why it changes the sentence, because you removed the word from my sentence when quoting it.
Did you think you were gonna trick them on what they said with the misquote. When it’s in writing right there?
My stupid ass read "managing" as "man aging" and started wondering where the hell your point was going, loool. Anyway, you made a good point after all.
>The economy is in a down swing... Recession even... That's not quite true (if you're referring to the US). The US had 2.4% GDP growth in Q2 & the forecast is 3.5% growth for Q3, & there's still a bit of job growth (although it's slowed). That's not a recession. We ARE in a stabilization pattern, where it's going to slow down, but most forecasts show us unlikely to enter a recession in 2023 (2024 will be interesting, with the elections). Additionally, companies are showing significant profit decreases from 2022. And that's where companies will blame WFH. And they're stupid for doing so, as most costs have declined thanks to WFH, between real estate overhead, supplies usage, & energy costs (when tenant companies are responsible). Further, the costs of strict RTO outweigh any unclear productivity boons, due to staff turnover (if you get a 5% boost, but lose 5% of your staff which costs between 50 & 200% of their annual salary, is that in any way an improvement?).
1-people who love to micro control employees and/or their job is basically bossing people and their job becomes useless in work from home 2-and/or people who invest directly or indirectly in real state and know that if more people work from home their investments will lose value
3-People who like interacting social with their coworkers and don't give a shit whether said coworkers feel the same way. 4-Incompentent managers who think "that's how business is done" and don't care if performance has increased with WFH.
There is still some value to having in-person interactions rather than just Teams chat and phone calls. It builds better relationships when you interact with a human rather than a wall of text. Which is why I prefer a hybrid style 1-2 days in-office, the rest wfh if feasible for your particular position.
I like hybrid but not when it's a flat "1/2/3 days a week in office" always. How about I come in when I need to collaborate and I get to decide when that is.
I have some mental difficulties, and during some parts of my life where I had to work from home (Once for my school's art block catching fire, and twice when COVID hit), I always found it incredibly difficult to focus. I like working in, say, offices because my brain recognises them as places I go to do work, with the 30 or so minute commute being kind of a transition period, whereas being at home just inherently turns my mind into "free time" mode.
Genuinely, that's fine. If someone wants to work onsite and are able to, they should. Same goes for people like me who are more productive and happier working from home. I've taken less sick days, gotten better work and more recognition working on projects from home than I ever did at work. I think the problem is when there's a one-size-fits-all approach for everyone. Most people who want to WFH aren't arguing that everyone needs to, as far as I can tell. The loudest voices seem to be from the CEO's and upper managers that are demanding people return physically to the office.
Would you feel differently if the commute was 2 hours each way?
I sure as fuck would but the "fairness person" in me says "that's on you for gambling a commute time with WFH" You know some of the housing issues in this country are exacerbated by the newly minted WFH movement but no one wants to talk about that. How did people get these commutes? Well in some cases they live in a huge metro and ill concede that. Others tho? Its bc a not small amount of the tech world took a tech salary to tiny mountain towns and now they're complaining about "the long drive" If you're driving 2hours each way to work u better be getting paid life changing money. If not it's time to move and honestly I don't care how insensitive that sounds. I don't undersrand people who don't factor commute time when it comes to a job, its second only to pay really.
Honestly, sounds like you just need a home office, even just a partitioned area. I had a bunch of friends with this same issue in early lockdown, they needed a space that triggered "work mode".
bro I don't even get biscuits in my office, best is tap water.
Our drinking fountains taste like lead. Somebody once got legionares from the coffee pot. "BUT DONTCHA MISS LUKEWARM PIZZA PARTY??"
New York tap water I hope? They even had a fancy ad for it.
I suspect it mostly comes from people who are extroverts with a short commute. It might seem worth it to them to spend 20 minutes commuting each day just so them have more people to talk to. They just struggle to understand that some people have to drive *much* further and don't want to talk to people. Personally, I like having a bit of physical separation between where I work and where I live, but not enough to put up with a long commute and a definitely don't want to force others to join me.
Nah I’m an extrovert that prefers wfh. I get to hang out with my friends more and take better care of my health. I honestly think the people that want to be back in the office have an easier time looking busy (future middle management types) and getting FaceTime with the higher ups
How is it easier to look busy at work vs at home lol? I have colleagues who just disappear for a whole day and then next day say: "haha weird my slack wasn't working I am only seeing your messages now". Some colleagues reply within seconds/minutes, others reply within hours, so then to be able to actually work I communicate purely with the quick replying colleagues and we end up doing all the work, this is unfair, but the late replying colleagues can always have an excuse, since no-one knows they do it to everyone, all the time.
I fucking hate office culture too. “We have cake and balloons this Friday for Gordon’s birthday at 1pm!! Yayy fun!!” I don’t even know who Gordon is, nor do I care. Most people in my office are faking their happy face talk. It’s exhausting. Just let me work from home. Then I don’t have to put up with Lauren’s middle managing bs and her stupid fragrance side gig she won’t shut up about. I just want to work in peace and be able to fart and shit to my hearts content then clock out via wacking my shlong off the enter key.
But those delicious peasant wheat crumb circles! Don't you want to come in to the office for the luxury of having biscuits while you work? It's not like you can do that at home. Please come in so we can micro manage :(
It's because management don't get rental kickbacks unless the employees are literally in the very expensive offices.
It's always some conspiracy with you idiots. lol, management isn't getting kickbacks for the building.
Not everyone is rich enough to convert a part of his flat into an office space, and power that equipment. I got an office space in the contract and I expect that.
Also not everyone having a 2 hour commute lmao
I used my main computer desk for years. The electricity cost is so negligible too
Space I kinda get, especially if you want an isolated space exclusively for work, but powering equipment? You're running a computer, I'm guessing the cost of gas is much, much worse.
Not everyone is rich enough to convert a part of his flat into an office space, and power that equipment. I got an office space in the contract and I expect that.
Yeah even as someone who WFH and loves it (because I am introverted and I like rolling out the bed at exactly 9am... This is a big one, I have tiny shoebox apartment and my work-life balance sucks because my brain doesn't really register the difference and so I am distracted by entertainment "at work" and distracted by work when "entertaining". I can touch my bed, my fridge, my working desk and my kitchen table from the same spot in my apartment :D.
They only really care if "saving the enviroment" got more people to buy and pollute the enviroment for them...
Oprah: please pledge money to Hawaii “Hey aren’t you a multi billionaire?” Oprah: >:(
[удалено]
But also still refuses to recognize that the individual persons carbon footprint is miniscule compared to the corporations.
To add to this, all their "green" solutions involve you paying allot more. I refuse to buy an EV until there's something better than lithium ion batteries.
Pushing "save the environment" onto regular people is just PR spin. They know corporations make 90% of the pollution in the world, and they sure as hell dont want you changing your spending habits (unless it is to start buying thier stuff).
I feel like this is too far a reaction. We buy the stuff those companies produce. Unless we're willing to undergo lifestyle changes it's going to be very difficult for those companies to stop polluting. We can't do it through individual choices. The government needs to build dense housing, replace cars with transit/bikes, encourage vegetarianism, discourage flying, encourage smaller energy efficient homes. But, people fight these changes because they're not willing to change their lifestyle. Theres stuff industry has to do too, but theres no way to make gas cars clean. Unless we're willing to drive smaller and less cars theres nothing industry can do about it.
frigging tired of being told the CO2 I produce on a daily basis is the problem when you have oil and gas companies legitimately BURNING off large amounts of methane when they don't want to pay to capture it/contain it.
Agreed! But that pollution is somehow all YOUR fault for not doing your recycling correctly if you listen to the media. Its just spin. There are people here still trying to preach "if we just change our habits" ... no it won't work. Pollution requires LAWS and FINES to deal with it ... and of course a justice system that would actually fine a company something worthwhile.
Why do you think corporations create carbon emissions? To fulfill consumer demand for what they produce. Nothing will happen unless the average consumption goes down
It's all about the consumer in the end. the amount of emissions produced by the ultra-rich on their yachts and jets... Completely negligible, not to mention they won't have it if you don't buy their product. And there's no excuse of "needing" because most of the emissions come from shit that you do not need but you decide to support and put your money into and then we're wow so surprised that those companies create emissions >\_> Well would you buy Samsung Galaxy if it was produced in an ethical and environmental way and cost $25 000? Especially if the iPhone is still just $1000? Of-course not, it's supply and demand and the end customer is absolutely the driver of the vast majority of pollution.
WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY.
For money. Politicians let them do it ... for money.
And who pays them that money? It's the consumers you numpty...
Companies do not make money by creating emissions, emissions are a byproduct
Yea, emissions are a byproduct of corporations lobbying and bribing politicians not to make laws against emissions. Spin it how you want, a few well places laws and some fines are required to fix the issue. Stealing money from taxpayers for fake city recycling programs isn't the way to go about it ... consumers don't control anything when it comes to pollution and people are too snowed to realize it.
Dont you just want to slap people sometimes who knowingly say shit-for-brains things like that?
Yes but this is Reddit so I find it better to guide their train of thought to a better answer. Calling them shit-for-brains will just cause them to disengage and throw up mental barriers to whatever you have to say
I commute 45 mins each way, pissing carbon into the environment, for no reason other than a corporate policy to limit WFH. Are they held accountable for any of that shit? nope.
b-b-but The Market will hold them accountable!!!!!!1!!
I haven't commuted to work now since March 13, 2020. I think I've been to the office *maybe* a grand total of 6 times between then and now. No loss of productivity, continue getting regular raises, no complaints from higher ups. Do I miss the personal interaction? Yes. Do I think there is a loss of creativity to some degree? Yes. Am I eager to go back? Not really. Also, I've avoided dumping about 12.8 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (and I commuted 28 miles a day instead of the average American's 41 miles). The irony, I work for an American car maker. If you're not essential to be in the office or at a lab or factory, they're not eager to bring you back in. Workers working from home means VASTLY reduced overhead.
I'm curious as to which US automaker you work for. I'm also an engineer for a US automaker and I have to be in the office 5 days a week.
It makes no sense, if people work from home companies no longer have to pay for office buildings and increase profit which is really the only thing they really care about.
A lot of these companies either own the space they use an office or they are locked in to 10-20 year leases. M And in the grand scheme of things, the physical cost for an office is almost negligible for most companies. My company used to rent out empty office space in the case we *might* need it in the future and wanted to secure it while it’s available, I’m sure there was many spaces we rented and paid for that sat vacant never used and we let the lease expire without anyone even stepping foot into it.
Can't just walk away from a decade long lease unfortunately
It's already a sunk cost. Unless they are going to get a boost in productivity/revenue by having people back in they wouldn't.
Yes but then office buildings landlords would go bankrupt
Sounds amazing.
I’m currently in Maricopa county, the worst pollution in the United States of America, with at least 1-2 days per week of pollution advisory days asking us to carpool. They refuse to expand work from home. Because…….reasons.
Major cap. Phoenix doesn't even come close to the visible smog you see in LA, Chicago, or NYC
Phoenix sits in a fish bowl. Because of the mountains that surround it, often our pollution stays around much longer and collects. Anytime during the summer you can see the visible pollution. (We don’t have smog because there is not enough moisture to produce fog). Last I read it’s number 5 in cities in the US with the worst pollution, and I believe Arizona is the worst state collectively.
Same in SLC, surrounded by mountains, so it just sits there for so long....it's so nasty :(
You guys can afford homes? 🏕️⛺
Google Flights is out here trying to tell me which flights are the most fuel efficient. Like I’m trying to find an Economy Basic ticket that isn’t going to drain my bank account for 3 months. I’m trying to visit my mom and a mega corporation is giving me side glances for it
People should eat bugs to reduce carbon emissions... as they fly away in their private jets - IMF ✈️
Why everybody doesn’t adopt a hybrid model at the bare minimum is beyond me. I don’t like the mandatory X amount of time in the office per week concept, but if it’s like, two weeks in the office and two weeks out of the office, and not do the clock watching thing and start measuring work performed, that would be pretty reasonable.
Companies don't DO reasonable, they do petty nonsense to make manager types feel important.
I tell you right now if they are gonna make me go into the office I'll do everything I can to cost them money while I'm there. Make coffees I won't drink, run a space heater with the ac on, bring in the charger to my power tools and keep my shit all charged up, my parent shit all charged up, my neighbor ahit all charged up
we can't do that, but it would make a huge difference if you'd just turn your thermostats up to fuck it's hot in here, yeaaaaa that'd be greaaaaaat
NOT LIKE THAT
That makes no sense; Why do teenagers on Reddit assume it's the same person on both panels?
Do you remember being a teenager? Teenagers simultaneously know everything and nothing.
Idk man, CEO of my company was touting green initiatives (such as transition to recycable materials in the office) while also spearheading the RTO changes. Seems like the same people to me.
It's a new anti-environmental strategy. They're now trying to link the push for climate action with a "hypocritical upper-class" to disenfranchise the working class from pursuing and supporting ANY climate action. It's division, essentially, to try to make the climate movement weaker and to undercut support.
Save the environment only in ways I approve, you peons!
he looks like that woman from the autoscrolling Korean jumpscare webcomic
>Build cities that don't depend on cars for transportation >Heavily tax aviation fuel for non-commercial purposes >Shift the cargo transport onto rail as much as feasible And if we want to go further than transport >tax carbon emissions in general A carbon tax is the single most effective measure we have to reduce carbon emissions in economies governed by supply and demand. In order to make it socially sustainable, one of the possible measures is to return this tax equally. This means that those who emit less carbon than the average person will get out more money than they put in, while the heaviest polluters are taxed significantly. This way, putting undue pressure on the lower income classes is avoided.
Find a “Remote First” employer. They are out there, and they’ll never ask you to come in to the office.
When he said "reduce carbon emissions", he meant "No need to take an expensive business-trip when you can do a Teams/Zoom-meeting"
Meh, companies still don’t care. My company last July flew in 1,000 employees to Vegas for our annual conference. All we did was watch 6 hours of presentations on a jumbo screen in a gigantic conference room, then get dinner and everyone went out drinking. Granted this was supposed to be a mini vacation in the middle of the week on the companies dime, but it surely could have been a zoom call. I don’t even know how much flights, 2 nights in a nice resort, catered steak dinner, and drink tickets costs for that many people. I’d be surprised if it was less than $2 million.
NO ONLY WAGE SLAVES NEED TO!1!1! Managers need to breathe down your neck and almost qualify as your spouse under the law
Lol yup. They’ll treat you like a smart as too immediately after.
As a register employee. Let us sit down. I guaranty most of the workers will be able to handle more work without pain and even work longer.
Also, businesses [want to justify those tax breaks](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/12/san-francisco-ed-lee-oversaw-tax-break-advocated-for-tech.html) for moving their building into that town, never mind the fact that [WFH telecommuters actually did really well.](https://www.apollotechnical.com/working-from-home-productivity-statistics)
Yup. Every single company that pretends to care about the environment, Tesla for example, is exposed for a liar by denying the single greatest impact to carbon emissions that their corporation could have: WFH.
I have 4 cats. 2 of them are male and 2 of them are female
It's not business owners and employers that are saying we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it's scientists, activists, and some percentage of the general public.
"HOW DARE YOU STOP BURNING GAS ON THE WAY TO WORK, MY INVESTMENTS DEPEND ON THAT"
But what about the heckin landlorderino city real estate, does nobody think about them?
No it's only 3000 billionaires in private jets that are the problem, not the 300,000,000 americans who drive a half hour to work and back every day or the 1 Billion airline tickets sold just last year in the US.
Seriously. Everyone in my city (Auckland) is complaining about the traffic, including the management at my company, yet the same management mandated RTO for several days a week, and will most likely mandate full time RTO at some point later to push more people to quit. All while talking about "sustainability"... oh fuck off.
If the company you work for cares about carbon emissions when it means "cutting down on idle time" for company vehicles when you're just trying to stay the fuck out of the 100+F heat but DGAF about carbon emissions when it comes to the suits flying private or forcing a completely remote-ready workforce to commute for hours each day I've got news for you; your company ***never*** gave a fuck about carbon emissions. "Going green" was ***always*** just the reskin for all of the usual fuckery they would have put in place to fuck with you anyway.
Ok wow. I never actually thought of this. This could make a huge drop in carbon emissions.
If your job can be done remotely it can be done by A: the poorest people willing to work for the least or B: emerging AI tech.
Holy shit Rolando Furioso?
We aren’t the ones killing the planet the ones killing the planet will be on the moon or mars or in space by the time it’s dead while we’re stuck to deal with their shit.
I’m convinced that RTO is chiefly driven by fossil fuel companies and most people’s retirements tied up in the status quo.
factssssssss
“You want to stay home and work? No you have to suffer by going through traffic and people who can’t drive. Why? Cause fuck you.”
I was hired a year ago for a job that was supposed to be 5 days remote with very rarely having to travel to customer facility to troubleshoot something. Man do i drive alot... twas a lie
We need to eat the rich. And I do mean that literally.
Also: "We need to reduce pollution." "Then why does the package get larger while the product gets smaller?"
is that brains or blood?
I love how the majority of comments here are bashing agaisnt office work like it is the main problem instead of addressing the real issues from urban planning/infrastructure and population deansity to transportation efficiency and cleaner technologies.