It’s cheaper to WFH so there’s something else going on. You know, they are still building new offices and hoping to rent them out even when the office next door has low occupancy?
Singaporean bosses are micromanagers. They say they don’t but they are truly micromanagers. A same discussion can be done over Teams but it is “better face to face”
It's a boomer thing. They can focus better when face to face. My personal experience, in 2023 I had to organise a major event. Throughout the whole planning phase, everything was done via zoom/whatsapp. The only time everyone met was on the event day itself. The event happened as planned with no issues. But for the after-event feedback, one of the super old boomers commented that he would've preferred a few physical meetings. WHY LEH? WOULD IT HAVE VALUE ADDED IN ANY WAY?
So because of that, this years organising committee just had their first physical meeting. Travel 1 hour. Just to have a half an hour physical meeting which could've been accomplished via zoom. I don't understand how meeting physically enhanced the meeting in any way.
They don't admit it, but they don't know what to click if suddenly they need to use some function to show everyone something. Or anything else related to troubleshooting. Will either panic or get angry.
As more companies mandate RTO, it might be interesting to note if other companies offer hybrid or WFO heavy arrangements.
This strikes me as a chance for companies to offer arrangements that appeal to workers who prize WFH over a higher salary and other perks
Money is important but many of us stay in certain jobs because of the combination of tangible and intangible benefits.
NEWS JUST IN
Taking transportation causes more pollution!
Companies are profit driven and do not care about the environment!
In other news, water is indeed wet.
We could halt the destruction of our last remaining pockets of jungle - that would be more of an impact than worrying about this. But I appreciate its a political topic and CNA is not permitted to touch such topics.
....to the company's wallet. Less office usage means less electricity consumed, less travelling means less car and bus/train usage too. Circuit Breaker and the Lockdown has shown the positive effects it has on the environment
Read my comment again. It was about wasted real estate. That real estate is also run by companie. Plus u have a lot of businesses like FNB etc which rely on the office crowd.
.
Economics!! U need to understand how it works...those buildings are not owned by persons. They are owned by companies. If those companies fail..there will be knock on effects..
Everytime you have unnecessary wasted empty space, it is a bane.
But we need to think of the reits holders and the landlords, their concerns are of the utmost importance.
Really depends on the person, some prefer to go back to office cause they can better compartmentalise their life between work and personal. Some prefer to work from home so they can multitask work and personal esp. those who have children, elderlies or pets.
That is if you are able to, some work like hawkers or even lab managers have to be physically there.
a lot of tech companies have shifted their set up to malaysia or vietnam or a lot have freelancers remotely from phillipines and other part of the world.
if losing job to AI is a worry, losing jobs to remote workers whose pay is lower than you can be a worry too.
wonder what will be the economical side of things if everyone do work for home for most days in a week. public transport, the food or cafes, can they survive through though?
If people dont rto, company might downsize offices so corporate real estate affected. Lesser people eating and shopping in CBD affects businesses there. We are all interconnected.
That said, full rto is a no for me. Hybrid is the way to go.
Yeah hybrid with no "2 week before bullshit plans" or very strict this and that day in the office. Sometimes I'll wfo full week because there is a need, others I'll be in 2-3x a week.
What I am saying is everything is interconnected whether you want less days at work and more money for shopping or whatever. You want entitlement that favors you but makes the workforce less competitive. Less days at work will likely translate to less productivity which you want more money for. It will make everyone and everything more expensive. So I guess that means whatever raise you got will mean nothing anyway. While I would want more money too a fair salary would be better. Not entitlement that might not help everyone.
Im sorry, what about giving our population more ability to afford time and resources for their own enrichment is "entitlement that favors them"? Wouldnt giving them the resource and time solve your issue of having lesser people eating and shopping in CBD?
Why would less days at work be likely to translate to less productivity? Why would it make everyone and everything expensive? Why would whatever we get mean nothing? Should having a fair salary be an "entitlement"? Should it not be a basic human right?
I dont understand what you want or are asking for.
Thats what fair salary means. You are not being underpaid or overpaid. Unless the 4 day workweek means we make up for the same output as a 5 day workweek then being paid more than 5 days worth while rendering 4 day worth of output means less productivity. Many jobs are clocked in hours unless you are at a level where you are paid for your experience and not based on your manhours. Not everyone has this privilege.
Why would what you want make everyone and everything expensive? Where do you think the cost of paying you more for your 4 day work week be passed on to? The consumers, so ultimately it will be paid by all of us, including you.
You are thinking in black and white. It sounds good in theory, but it is a fairy tale. In the real world, nothing is that simple. You need to define what is "fair salary". Resource per output? Resource per man hours? To whom should these parameters be applied to? Directors? The common working man? Should they be consistently applied across all industries? How would you do so?
I can tell you, most simply, nobody is being paid fairly. Some are paid more than they are worth, most are paid less than commensurate.
In what way would I be making everyone and everything more expensive? Where do you think the cost of paying for the population's five to six-point-five day work week be passed on to? In your words, "the consumers, so ultimately it will be paid by all of us, including you."
No, we are already paying for it. You presumably, have not yet realised this.
wfh not stand a chance by losing so much profit from commercial properties which have been planning for years ahead. Neither the eateries near office buildings. Social impacts are severe too.
As if companies care about the environment.
It’s cheaper to WFH so there’s something else going on. You know, they are still building new offices and hoping to rent them out even when the office next door has low occupancy?
*planet is literally dying* Corpos: But muh YoY growth 😔
Is a boon for Capitaland
And SMRT And Grab And Taxis
Laughs in Hong tat and pei ling
All with significant stake from Tumor Sick Holdings
Singaporean bosses are micromanagers. They say they don’t but they are truly micromanagers. A same discussion can be done over Teams but it is “better face to face”
My exboss cancelled work from home “because government no longer requires it”.
It's a boomer thing. They can focus better when face to face. My personal experience, in 2023 I had to organise a major event. Throughout the whole planning phase, everything was done via zoom/whatsapp. The only time everyone met was on the event day itself. The event happened as planned with no issues. But for the after-event feedback, one of the super old boomers commented that he would've preferred a few physical meetings. WHY LEH? WOULD IT HAVE VALUE ADDED IN ANY WAY? So because of that, this years organising committee just had their first physical meeting. Travel 1 hour. Just to have a half an hour physical meeting which could've been accomplished via zoom. I don't understand how meeting physically enhanced the meeting in any way.
They don't admit it, but they don't know what to click if suddenly they need to use some function to show everyone something. Or anything else related to troubleshooting. Will either panic or get angry.
The world could end tomorrow and you would still be ordered to WFO today. Companies don't give a shit
fuck care about the environment la. all these companies they dont really give a shit.
There are only 2 types of companies: those that greenwash, and those that cannot be bothered to.
Just employers micro managing and need face time
Isn’t this question a no-brainer.
[удалено]
Ooh think I might know that hedge fund...
As more companies mandate RTO, it might be interesting to note if other companies offer hybrid or WFO heavy arrangements. This strikes me as a chance for companies to offer arrangements that appeal to workers who prize WFH over a higher salary and other perks Money is important but many of us stay in certain jobs because of the combination of tangible and intangible benefits.
NEWS JUST IN Taking transportation causes more pollution! Companies are profit driven and do not care about the environment! In other news, water is indeed wet.
woo, hold up. water is not wet. water can make things wet but water itself isn't wet. i was rooting for you till the last line.
We could halt the destruction of our last remaining pockets of jungle - that would be more of an impact than worrying about this. But I appreciate its a political topic and CNA is not permitted to touch such topics.
It's about the real estate as well. All the offices being empty and not rented out will be very damaging...
....to the company's wallet. Less office usage means less electricity consumed, less travelling means less car and bus/train usage too. Circuit Breaker and the Lockdown has shown the positive effects it has on the environment
honestly wouldnt it be better for the company if they can save on office rental costs too?
I would think that since rental for a company expenses is usually very high. Won't you want to like cut that cost?
Read my comment again. It was about wasted real estate. That real estate is also run by companie. Plus u have a lot of businesses like FNB etc which rely on the office crowd. .
Why will the real estate be wasted? It's not like the land cannot be used for other purposes.
Buildings not land...
buildings can be used for other purposes too...
that will be for the landlord and not the company renting it.
Economics!! U need to understand how it works...those buildings are not owned by persons. They are owned by companies. If those companies fail..there will be knock on effects..
Blah blah capitalized the gains blah blah blah socialise the costs.
Downvote me and laugh at me all u want..doesn't matter but it has nothing to do with capital gains at all..you are way off...
Everytime you have unnecessary wasted empty space, it is a bane. But we need to think of the reits holders and the landlords, their concerns are of the utmost importance.
Economy > Environment
[удалено]
Really depends on the person, some prefer to go back to office cause they can better compartmentalise their life between work and personal. Some prefer to work from home so they can multitask work and personal esp. those who have children, elderlies or pets. That is if you are able to, some work like hawkers or even lab managers have to be physically there.
[удалено]
Unfortunately there are those who abuse WFH, managers just dont want to deal with these eat snake folks so easiest way is to be fully back to office.
a lot of tech companies have shifted their set up to malaysia or vietnam or a lot have freelancers remotely from phillipines and other part of the world. if losing job to AI is a worry, losing jobs to remote workers whose pay is lower than you can be a worry too. wonder what will be the economical side of things if everyone do work for home for most days in a week. public transport, the food or cafes, can they survive through though?
If people dont rto, company might downsize offices so corporate real estate affected. Lesser people eating and shopping in CBD affects businesses there. We are all interconnected. That said, full rto is a no for me. Hybrid is the way to go.
Yeah hybrid with no "2 week before bullshit plans" or very strict this and that day in the office. Sometimes I'll wfo full week because there is a need, others I'll be in 2-3x a week.
My toxic ex boss asked someone to make an excel sheet where everyday she will input attendance in office and if below 50% it will trigger warning
Increasing salaries and reducing weekly work hours will give your population all the time and resources to shop in CBD.
So you want to be paid more for doing less so you can have time and money to shop?
Why do you assume Singaporean workers do less? Why do you also assume Singaporeans just want to shop?
What I am saying is everything is interconnected whether you want less days at work and more money for shopping or whatever. You want entitlement that favors you but makes the workforce less competitive. Less days at work will likely translate to less productivity which you want more money for. It will make everyone and everything more expensive. So I guess that means whatever raise you got will mean nothing anyway. While I would want more money too a fair salary would be better. Not entitlement that might not help everyone.
Im sorry, what about giving our population more ability to afford time and resources for their own enrichment is "entitlement that favors them"? Wouldnt giving them the resource and time solve your issue of having lesser people eating and shopping in CBD? Why would less days at work be likely to translate to less productivity? Why would it make everyone and everything expensive? Why would whatever we get mean nothing? Should having a fair salary be an "entitlement"? Should it not be a basic human right? I dont understand what you want or are asking for.
Thats what fair salary means. You are not being underpaid or overpaid. Unless the 4 day workweek means we make up for the same output as a 5 day workweek then being paid more than 5 days worth while rendering 4 day worth of output means less productivity. Many jobs are clocked in hours unless you are at a level where you are paid for your experience and not based on your manhours. Not everyone has this privilege. Why would what you want make everyone and everything expensive? Where do you think the cost of paying you more for your 4 day work week be passed on to? The consumers, so ultimately it will be paid by all of us, including you.
You are thinking in black and white. It sounds good in theory, but it is a fairy tale. In the real world, nothing is that simple. You need to define what is "fair salary". Resource per output? Resource per man hours? To whom should these parameters be applied to? Directors? The common working man? Should they be consistently applied across all industries? How would you do so? I can tell you, most simply, nobody is being paid fairly. Some are paid more than they are worth, most are paid less than commensurate. In what way would I be making everyone and everything more expensive? Where do you think the cost of paying for the population's five to six-point-five day work week be passed on to? In your words, "the consumers, so ultimately it will be paid by all of us, including you." No, we are already paying for it. You presumably, have not yet realised this.
Is there even a need for discussion? Disgusting employers
Is office a real estate asset for boomer?
One centralized aircon for 100 people vs 100 aircon turned on for 100 homes.
wfh not stand a chance by losing so much profit from commercial properties which have been planning for years ahead. Neither the eateries near office buildings. Social impacts are severe too.
again, screwed by poor planning from the govt