Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » Yesterday, 10:18 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 10:18 pm

Identifying the problem is half way to solving it. There might be a third way.

Based on your copy-paste, it seems to me that they have identified what is NOT working about work-from-home. What IS working about work from home still IS working. Things like higher employee moral and satisfaction, lower turnover costs - which SHOULD be taken into consideration as an OFFSET against those lower productivity numbers, by the way. So, if employers are in possession of the data around what does and doesn't work regarding remote employees, it is possible that employers can take steps to mitigate against the problems while still maintaining the benefits they derive from remote employees.

I mean, Idunno - I can't drop the fries in the fat-vat from home. So Skippy (my manager) says I can't be a remote employee. I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm DAMN sure not gonna finally make Fry Captain by getting under Skip's skin. I'm just saying, it seems to me that the conclusion that should be drawn from the information you shared is not NECESSARILY that work-from-home doesn't work. It could be there need to be two office days - not five. Or it could be they can stay on full remote, but with operative practices and cultural changes that address what isn't working - what is dropping productivity.