2 comments

[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 10.0 ms ] thread
I guess not all work is suited for WFH.

Also, home has its own set of distractions, not more and not less then the home office does, but just different ones.

But now that we have all smelled (or even, God forbid, tasted) freedom, the true question for companies becomes: how badly do I want to retain this high-quality worker and how many days WFH will it “cost” me?

> It is not more productive than being in an office, after all

One might argue that prior "in-office productivity" metrics were already too rosy since they did not include bazillions of man-hours of usually-uncompensated commuting.

To see why the issue contaminates measures of worker productivity, try a thought-experiment: For some supernatural reason, all office-buildings (but not homes) are periodically flooded with magic stupefying-gas, causing everyone inside to be stuck mindless and motionless for an hour per day.

Does it seem right to ignore that aspect of "office efficiency" versus "home efficiency", just because employers have a negotiating position that allows them to push the costs of that wasted hour entirely onto workers?