Paywall removed: https://archive.is/mNVfc

all 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 1 year ago

Inc. article from July 10, 2025. [New Data Shows Workers Are Mostly Ignoring Return-to-Office Orders](https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/new-data-shows-workers-are-mostly-ignoring-return-to-office-orders/91202144)

  • source
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago

    return to work.

    Misleading right from the start

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago

    The workers should ensure they don’t remain on the fortune 100 list. :3c

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Meanwhile, everyone is the Fortune 101+ is raking in the talent by allowing remote work. Every job I’ve seen that is remote has had 400+ applicants on LI whereas on-site is lucky to get 20-30.

    Companies offering remote are swimming in talent options.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [+] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago*

    Because the other CEOs who don't understand how people can work remotely are doing it and they want to fit in by forcing their employees to do the same.

    Proof that remote work makes for better and more effective employees means nothing, they just want control. Same reason they force people to follow specific office hours and mandate overtime that just drags out work that could be done in four days if they have flexible schedules.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    City governments have been pushing hard because they're worried about their tax base and economies - not so much for the office space itself (though that's in danger), but the ancillary businesses like coffee shops, lunch places, and car parks. It's a shitty reason, as they could take the opportunity to rearchitect office space into livable housing and solve the problem that way - but they don't want to.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    19 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 49 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    I heard talk about this at my job. Which I'll be leaving shortly after if it goes through.

    The job sucks, the only indignity I'm spared is having to take nonstop international teams calls from an office for no reason. If I'm not even spared that, it's time to go a looking and a leaving. I don't give a fuck either about keeping my exact pay scale or role or title.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Make sure you have a new job lined up first, because the job market is fucked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm on the market now and I can confirm the job market is indeed fucked. Especially for anyone location restricted or wanting remote work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yup, I'm an IT engineer with over a decade of experience who was laid off in February and I haven't had a single interview from the hundreds of applications I've filled out despite multiple letters of recommendation from the owners of several former jobs.

    I'm about to hopefully get a job in property management at my local college until things improve (and I can get my cyber security masters for free).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Yeah. I've been looking in analytics and it's awful. Any remote job on linked in gets over 200 applications ("people who clicked 'Apply'") in the first day. If you see a posting more than a day out it's very likely to have more than 1000 applications (I've seen as much as 4500).

    I emailed a recruiter about a posting recently when the job page on the company site was throwing an error. I told her about the error and asked if the job was real/still available. She said she'd gotten over 500 applications within a few hours of listing it and shut down the posting because she was overwhelmed. I think that's the norm now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yeah I mean I'll try to strike gold at first by landing a new remote job, and then knowing that likely won't work I'll search for basically anything else. If it comes to it, I'll just subtly violate their policies and have them fire me in the inevitable next round of layoffs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Cheaper than firing people.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    This is the correct answer. These companies 'mandate' but anyone who's not expendable who refuses gets an exception. So all the expendables go into the office looking around at each other wondering why they're there. That's why. You're the expendables.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Come on guys, just think of the middle managers, how else are they gonna micromanage you if you're not in the office?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago
    [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    it was always the goal, it gives them an incentive to use constructive dismissal to avoid paying out severances or other benefits. this way they can rehire or hire visa holders for less than what they offer wage before.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Fuck them all.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    I hate this. I hate this. I hate this.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    We do live in the worst timeline, don’t we?

  • source